Go for the pronoun bollocks on email signatures next please.
Everyone is passively pressured to do that, and comply with gender identity ideology, on pain of otherwise being accused of being a bigot.
What do you want? For the courts to make pronouns illegal? For what it’s worth I think you’re projecting. In my current firm some people have pronouns in their email signature and some don’t (I don’t) and noone cares either way.
You must have missed my passively pressured point.
You are actively prompted to state them, and questioned when you don't. Most people therefore have them, and it makes it harder to not have them - you stand out more and you're at risk of being labelled accordingly.
It's a policy thing in most firms to prompt or ask demonstrate "allyship".
I would like that changed.
I have never put my pronouns in any of my documents or emails, nor have I been pressured to do so. I would not work for a company which either demanded them or forbade them.
Let people be people.
In my experience, it's a rare public sector organisation which doesn't tell employees to use pronouns on email signatures. It's an ever rarer organisation trying to sell professional services to the public sector which doesn't tell employees to do so.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Not a minority of one.
No, there are a few of us. But I don’t see much point on getting in an argument with the triumphalists - or those who appear happy to call my son mentally ill.
I think we need to be much more tolerant of difference and the modern tendency to give a diagnosis to any difference and to medicalise it is generally unhelpful. Trans people that I have come across have a clear and distinct sense of self. I think that we all do. The difference is that their sense of self is not consistent with their biological reality and this often makes them unhappy. They try to bring their physical reality into accord with that sense of self either by surgery or medication. That needs compassion, consideration and support but it doesn't make them mentally ill.
"that their sense of self is not consistent with their biological reality" - this strikes me as describing one aspect of 'mentally ill'pretty well.
I know this sounds pejorative. I don't mean it to. I'm no more trying to demonise trans people than I would be trying to demonise the clinically depressed. But we are pussy-footing around this for fear of causing offence, which is how we have got into the mess that we have. A man who says he is a woman isn't a woman, and the world should be under no legal obligation to change to fit his perceptions (or, in some cases, whims.)
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
Lots of people believe things that are not true, or at least that most people don’t think are true. Being wrong about something does not make someone mentally ill. There is a debate about gender identity, but if we accepted your premise that trans gender people are wrong, that still wouldn’t make them mentally ill.
There are people who believe foreign countries pay tariffs, that Ukraine started the war with Russia, that Liz Truss managed the economy well. These are all wrong. Holding these views does not constitute mental illness. Mental illness is something that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
It's a very circular definition that you have of Trans people and mental illness.
How so?
If you define feeling a different gender to your biological sex then all trans people are defined as mentally ill.
I don't believe this to be the case.
Why not? Are you accepting that some are, then? And if some are, why not all?
While not taking sides in this argument I am curious
You have three people
1) I am the reincarnated napolean 2) I am a carrot born in a human body 3) I am a woman/man born in a body of the opposite sex
define which are mentally ill or not and describe why some are and some are not. Genuinely curious about the differences and not suggesting any of them are mentally ill
Also believing you are too fat when you weigh 5 stone
Let’s take (2). If you believe you are a carrot born in a human body and this causes you no distress, you live a happy life, you have no difficulty holding down a job, you are a fully functioning member of society, then, no, you would not be considered to have a mental illness.
What I want to know is how did we reach a situation where judges are making decisions like the one today? I can remember when it was the job of judges to do things like preside over trials, pass sentences, and chair the occasional public inquiry. It didn't use to be their remit to make momentous political decisions, in this country at least. That was more what happened in the United States. I'm not sure the creation of a supreme court UK was at all a good decision.
I don’t think the UK Supreme Court is like the US one. The UK one has clarified what the law says. They have sought to be clear that they weren’t making a broader ontological distinction. Parliament is free to amend the law.
That’s very different to the US court that clearly makes partisan decisions about what they think should be and that puts itself above the legislature.
The interesting thing about today's judgement is that it is being portrayed as the Supreme Court defining what a woman is, where as actually it is the Supreme Court defining what the Equality Act says a woman is. There's nothing to stop Parliament from amending the act, but will the parties support doing so?
Con and Ref - clear no Lab - some of the activists will want it, but can't see Starmer touching with a bargepole SNP - sounds like still yes Green (Eng/Wal) and LD - ???
Labour will do whatever it thinks its phantom red wall voters want, just like it’s doing with Trump.
Amidst all the triumphalism I hope at least a handful of MPs from whichever party will find it in their hearts to remember that trans people are human beings too, and not join the ranks of those who would have 2+2 equal 5 and say transgender people are just deluded and mentally ill, or “pretending”.
Because that is the undercurrent. I seem to be in a minority of 1 here in having any qualms about this, probably because I’m a “Lib Dem twat”, but there you have it.
Is it not a valid position to think that (a) trans people are human beings and (b) trans people are mentally ill/deluded? What is the evidence that believing you are the wrong gender is NOT a mental illness? That French king who believed he was made of glass was regarded as having a mental illness.
Lots of people believe things that are not true, or at least that most people don’t think are true. Being wrong about something does not make someone mentally ill. There is a debate about gender identity, but if we accepted your premise that trans gender people are wrong, that still wouldn’t make them mentally ill.
There are people who believe foreign countries pay tariffs, that Ukraine started the war with Russia, that Liz Truss managed the economy well. These are all wrong. Holding these views does not constitute mental illness. Mental illness is something that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.
I was convinced by your first paragraph. I started having doubts on reading your second paragraph 😁
Comments
NEW THREAD
I know this sounds pejorative. I don't mean it to. I'm no more trying to demonise trans people than I would be trying to demonise the clinically depressed. But we are pussy-footing around this for fear of causing offence, which is how we have got into the mess that we have. A man who says he is a woman isn't a woman, and the world should be under no legal obligation to change to fit his perceptions (or, in some cases, whims.)
There are people who believe foreign countries pay tariffs, that Ukraine started the war with Russia, that Liz Truss managed the economy well. These are all wrong. Holding these views does not constitute mental illness. Mental illness is something that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning.
That’s very different to the US court that clearly makes partisan decisions about what they think should be and that puts itself above the legislature.