U.K Politics: Revenge of the Truss.

[Varysblackfyre321]

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

expressly says “I do NOT endorse or defend JKR” maybe they truly don’t?

I’m totally open to the possibility that I am wrong and if you awknowledge Rowling’s rhetoric surrounding trans people is bigoted  I will apologize right this second

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Does anyone with even the faintest pushback on an issue automatically become a horrible bigot?

Nope. 
 

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Even if you secretly think I’m worse than what I write,

I genuinely don’t. Hence my responses to you.

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

if it’s helpful to say that?

Helpful to who and what way?

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I encountered were Rowling’s letter and one of your posts Varys? Can you empathise with someone who emerged thinking that she had the high ground in terms of tone?

Genuinely depends on the post. 
 

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Seemingly calm and evidence based on one hand, and explicitly advocating to ignore writings on the other, brandishing them TERFs who shouldn’t be listened to?

So I’m never going to get an answer on Rowling flirting with Walsh over his bigotry against trans people am I?

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Honestly, if anyone says to me “don’t read this letter opposing my views” … I’ll be pretty damn curious to read that.

I never said don’t read the letter though. I insinuated you thought on substance what Rowling was saying was reasonable, not just matter of rhetorically appearing reasonable.

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

There’s an awful lot of confused people in the middle ground. The left far too often brandishes them as bigots immediately, and doesn’t allow for the possibility that people can be confused, or maybe just wrong? Can a person still be earnestly wrong, in good faith? 

Sure and they can also be bigoted. 

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

There needs to be equally carefully written rebuttals of her views (they’re depressingly difficult to find, amongst the standard ‘she said this therefore she’s a TERF, therefore stop reading’)

Yeah comments like this is why I’m not buying “I’m just a neutral observer asking questions!” shtick.

when you go “golly jeez I sure am sad no one seems to be able to rebuff Rowling’s seemingly reasonable sounding points!”

Listen I can’t read your mind, I fully concede what I think is boringly obvious can be wrong.

Taking your comment seriously. There are plenty of people who in good faith and in careful consideration tried to show why Rowling’s opinions surrounding trans people are wrong and could lead to needless suffering(even if she doesn’t intend that). She never responds to them.

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I don’t think the analogy with racism really works, because racism no longer has a legitimate voice in the country.

That’s incredibly vague.

What do you mean by legitimate voice?

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

It’s well outside the Overton window, we know it’s stupid and wrong.

Okay youve broadened outside the U.K which makes the statement of “we” knowing racism is wrong even more fuzzy.

Orban is a super str for the American right even after(especially after) he declared Hungary would not become a mixed race(race not culture) country.

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

Trans issues are, regrettably, not the same.

As in we don’t know bigotry against trans people bad?

55 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

The very fact that Sturgeon floundered

Can Tell me how you think she floundered without arguing she should have insinuated trans women aren’t real women?

 

[Heartofice]

7 minutes ago, karaddin said:

This is a sampling of some of the things from the last few years that don't depict a person looking to engage with the subject in good faith and very much identifying herself with one side of it.

JKR doesn’t engage with people in good faith, she isn’t a particularly honest person, she isn’t it seems a very nice person. I never considered her a good person before this all kicked off and I don’t now. She’s been pulling this shit far longer than she ever started talking about trans people. She is not a good advocate for her position.

But the point isn’t whether she is a good debater or nice person, it’s whether she is fairly being labelled as a transphobe, worthy of death threats and cancellation. I haven’t seen anything to suggest that she is.

I think whether she is right or wrong is a whole other issue, and is open to debate, but the point is you can’t start from the point she is automatically wrong because she doesn’t agree with you.

[kiko]

13 minutes ago, karaddin said:

For the bolded - providing citations for the views of the various people in question, that's going to result in spamming the fuck out of this thread and not something I'm going to dive into on a Friday night. Can we start with Matt Walsh - is it reasonable to state that he's a fair right figure, and not remotely a feminist one at that, and state that its worth raising an eyebrow that JK would praise his views as communicated in his film?

I can also talk to some of her other actions, her entry point into this whole discussion greatly misrepresented the facts of the case that she was objecting to - an unfair dismissal claim where Maya Forstater did not have her contract renewed (note - note even actually fired) for creating a hostile workplace for colleagues and damaging the not for profit she was meant to be working for. JK characterized this as firing a woman for "stating sex is real" - full write up https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/j-k-rowling-s-maya-forstater-tweets-support-hostile-work-ncna1105201. JK caught backlash for this, and did not take it well, leading to the TERF community being primed to love bomb her as soon as she later complained about the "people who menstruate" language the next year. Since then she's demonstrated a clear trend on the issue over time, including accidentally copy/pasting a rant into the middle of a reply to kids art (which also demonstrates that she's reading the TERF forums at the same time as doing PR tweets to kids. She attacked Graham Norton for saying that he (GN) shouldn't even be getting asked about his views on trans people after Billy Bragg extended the comment to be applicable to her as well as John Cleese.

This is a sampling of some of the things from the last few years that don't depict a person looking to engage with the subject in good faith and very much identifying herself with one side of it.

That’s exactly my point. You look at what they say and then you can easily draw your conclusions. 

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

Lol you have absolutely no interest in anything I say regarding transition or its impact on me, don't act like you're interested in all viewpoints.

Or the overwhelming amount of people who socially and medically transition actually and don’t regret it actually.

The Actual data  on the topic contradicts the narrative they’re trying to build.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Dude, you’ve bluntly stated you think trans women are really mentally ill men at best. 

 

What have I said?

[Heartofice]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

JK characterized this as firing a woman for "stating sex is real" - full write up https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/j-k-rowling-s-maya-forstater-tweets-support-hostile-work-ncna1105201. JK caught backlash for this

A case that was won on appeal, stating that believing in gender critical beliefs are protected by law. I'm not sure why that part was missed. Again, pointing to the fact these are not extremist views or beyond the pale. 

[karaddin]

37 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

A case that was won on appeal, stating that believing in gender critical beliefs are protected by law. I'm not sure why that part was missed. Again, pointing to the fact these are not extremist views or beyond the pale. 

Because I had to look up articles from 2019 to refresh my memory on it which funnily enough didn't mention that it was overturned on appeal in 2022?

I do remember now you prompt it, and remember finding it utterly ridiculous but there you go. It doesn't change the fact that the way Rowling stated it is a gross mischaracterisation of the situation, it just decided that if you use the right political beliefs you can deliberately harm the organization you're supposed to be working for by insulting professional contacts in public.

[mormont]

The Forstater case is poorly understood by all sides, not least because Forstater herself has said some things about it that aren't strictly accurate (not uncommon in legal victories).

It's also much better known than other employment law cases in this area. For example, there's a significant case involving a doctor with GC beliefs. He wasn't working in the NHS but for a private agency assessing disability claims for the DWP. During training, he said he would refuse to address trans people he was assessing by their chosen gender. He was told this was unacceptable. He resigned and claimed constructive dismissal, alleging he'd been fired for his beliefs, and lost his case and subsequent appeal.

There were several key differences between the cases but the one most relevant here is that while GC beliefs are indeed protected, it's also the case that an employer can validly dismiss you if the expression of those beliefs creates a genuine employment problem (for example, in this case, it would have offended the dignity of those being assessed, in breach of the employer's policies) and the employer is unable to make reasonable accommodations.

So in some circumstances, one can be validly dismissed for GC beliefs - not for holding them, but for how one expresses them. They are protected, but only to a point. Somewhat similar to other prejudices, in fact.

[Heartofice]

Here is a bit on the MF appeal decision and why it might be correct in her case but different in others, which is basically what Mormont is saying:

https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/maya-forstater-wins-gender-critical-belief-claim

 

Quote

An important question was whether CGD Europe acted as they did because of Ms Forstater’s beliefs or because of the way she manifested them. Legally, this has been an important distinction. Everyone has the right to hold or not hold a belief.  Discriminating against people because of what they believe is directly discriminatory (assuming the belief is protected). By contrast, if the reason why an employee is treated less favourably is not their belief but is the way they manifested the belief then this has generally been regarded as indirect rather than direct discrimination. Policies which restrict inappropriate manifestations of belief may indirectly discriminate against people who hold certain beliefs but they are potentially justifiable as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.  

Quote

In terms of direct discrimination, previous cases have tended to find that employers have reacted to how employees have manifested their beliefs, not because of the beliefs themselves.  The ET’s decision in Forstater goes against this trend, however, in finding that the employer in this case was essentially objecting to the beliefs themselves. Although not expressly stated in the decision, the ET seems to believe that the right to hold a belief includes a limited right to manifest that belief. If that manifestation becomes inappropriate, the balance is tipped back towards indirect, not direct, discrimination. As we explain below, the ET found that Ms Forstater’s beliefs were not manifested inappropriately.

 

[Crixus]

On 2/15/2023 at 5:26 PM, BigFatCoward said:

The BBC have a 30 year old and a 32 year old as 2 of the favourites, what the f'ck am i doing with my life.  I know how Caesar must have felt when considering the achievements of Alexander the Great.  

'I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable?

He did kill the Republic, that's plenty memorable

[Rippounet]

17 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I'll be honest, I haven't been paying attention to trans issues.  I'm looking to be informed rather than participate in a row.  So, a question.  What's the rebuttal to this article?

 https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/opinion/jk-rowling-transphobia.html

I would recommend Katy Montgomerie's Addressing The Claims In JK Rowling’s Justification For Transphobia and Laurie Penny's TERF Wars: Why Transphobia Has no Place in Feminism.

Montgomerie's piece is a point by point rebuttal of JKR's famous letter, but Penny's goes much deeper and touches on the historical and philosophical dimensions of the anti-trans movement in Britain.

[Week]

Cannot say it any better or clearer than @mormont or @karaddin. Absolutely boggles my mind that suggesting to read people that BFC didn't know and hasn't read* has kicked off truly a level of poor arguments and bad faith.

 

*Nor was it ever a complete or explicit command to *only* read these people ffs. BFC -- you are being extremely dishonest or foolish if you truly believe that transgender writers, activists, and medical professionals (of all types) that treat transgender people and their community all have the exact same point and perspective. Parents of transgender teens, teens, older folks that have transitioned, doctors that have medically supported or counseled family and community throughout, etc. That's a broad spectrum of people.

edited to finish the thought. 

[BigFatCoward]

28 minutes ago, Week said:

Cannot say it any better or clearer than @mormont or @karaddin. Absolutely boggles my mind that suggesting to read people that BFC didn't know and hasn't read* has kicked off truly a level of poor arguments and bad faith.

 

*Nor was it ever a complete or explicit command to *only* read these people ffs. BFC -- you are being extremely dishonest or foolish if you truly believe that transgender writers, activists, and medical professionals (of all types) that treat transgender people and their community. 

Nvm, what's the point? 

 

Court ruling on 83 year old widow who was left nothing by her millionaire husband of 66 years getting a significant proportion of the estate raises a few questions. 

Why was he such a cunt and why did her sons follow the same path?  How is this necessary in 2023? 

 

[Heartofice]

51 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

I would recommend Katy Montgomerie's Addressing The Claims In JK Rowling’s Justification For Transphobia and Laurie Penny's TERF Wars: Why Transphobia Has no Place in Feminism.

Montgomerie's piece is a point by point rebuttal of JKR's famous letter, but Penny's goes much deeper and touches on the historical and philosophical dimensions of the anti-trans movement in Britain.

It might be a point by point rebuttal, and while a lot of it might be valid, it's also worth keeping in mind that it is coming from the other extreme position and putting an interpretation on events based on their own prejudices. You only have to look at the language used, the way things are stated and the interpretations to understand that this is not a neutral, cold hard facts kinda piece. 

And that is fine. Its an important critical thinking skill to see when something is written with clear biases underpinning it. Which I think is what was already said about the original JRK letter. 

It just reinforces the need to 'hear both sides' on these things, because if you were to read only the JRK letter or this article you would not be able to get an accurate picture of the truth. 

[karaddin]

Yup, supportive parent of a trans kid is an extreme position. This is exactly what I was saying before, the 'sides' on this issue being treated as remotely analogous is ridiculous. And we continue being baited into this shit by the cynical fucks that profit off it while

5 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

 

this doesn't get near the attention it should deserves. Giving minority groups basic rights isn't a distraction the way its sometimes suggested, but the backlash against that certainly has a history of being used to great effect.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Yup, supportive parent of a trans kid is an extreme position. This is exactly what I was saying before, the 'sides' on this issue being treated as remotely analogous is ridiculous. And we continue being baited into this shit by the cynical fucks that profit off it while

I think you read that article and come away thinking that was a neutral dispassionate piece of journalism then you just aren't paying attention. But then if you are not prepared to even countenance that there might be differing opinions to your own and are determined to defame anyone with other views then it would explain why you might have blinkers on. 
 

 

[Spockydog]

Oh, look. A "pragmatic Brexiteer". What's that when it's at home? Whatever it is, I'm not sure we should listen to anything from twats with their heads stuck up their arses.

Imagine trying to defend this shit. 

 

 

 

[karaddin]

You mean using nested corporate structures to project profits and aid lobbying actually works? I assumed all the corporations in the world just enjoy pushing paper around. I will freely admit I'm making an assumption here but it's one I'm pretty comfortable making to think that deflection is talking out it's ass.

I didn't read Katy Montgomery's article, I've already devoted far too much of my day to this shit. I just know who she is and was responding to your immediate dismissal of her as a member of the other "extreme". I don't need to know the content of the article to see you framing it like that. Anyone with a personal connection to a trans person will be treated as sufficiently biased for it to have compromised them. Unless their connection isn't positive, those are fine I'm sure.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You mean using nested corporate structures to project profits and aid lobbying actually works? I assumed all the corporations in the world just enjoy pushing paper around. I will freely admit I'm making an assumption here but it's one I'm pretty comfortable making to think that deflection is talking out it's ass.

Which bit is talking out of its ass specifically? I’ve worked with Centrica in the past, terrible bullshit company,  but they have been losing money hand over fist for years and have had to restructure and fire people to get back on course. Part of that was due to price caps that prevented them raising  prices, which kind of crippled them.  Either way it’s simply poor national investment strategy to keep going after companies each time they make a profit for one off cash grabs.

 

5 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I didn't read Katy Montgomery's article, I've already devoted far too much of my day to this shit. I just know who she is and was responding to your immediate dismissal of her as a member of the other "extreme". I don't need to know the content of the article to see you framing it like that. Anyone with a personal connection to a trans person will be treated as sufficiently biased for it to have compromised them. Unless their connection isn't positive, those are fine I'm sure.

I don’t know who she is other than her profile on that article, but I read it and it was pretty clear it was framing events from a very definite perspective, while attempting to appear to be dispassionate, something you accused JRK of doing, a rhetorical trick you said, but the same thing happens in that very article, hense why you can’t just say that you should only listen to some voices, because that is never the whole truth.

[karaddin]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

It might be a point by point rebuttal, and while a lot of it might be valid, it's also worth keeping in mind that it is coming from the other extreme position and putting an interpretation on events based on their own prejudices. 

I was responding to this. If you were addressing the content of the article rather than issuing a disclaimer about the author then that was very unclear to me.