5 ms·

Ahhhh awesome, so when you were talking about your perspective on the interplay of sex and gender you weren't implying that there was anything inherently, objec

Ahhhh awesome, so when you were talking about your perspective on the interplay of sex and gender you weren't implying that there was anything inherently, objectively absurd about there being 42 sexes, you were just implying you felt that was absurd for some... personal reason? By the way, there's probably way more than 42 since so many things play into sex characteristics, and some of the measures are continuous rather than discrete. > You're running around in circles now and thus, there is little point in continuing. By saying there existed an "overwhelmingly binary" sex spectrum, you implied the existence of a minority, so I'm simply saying to give those people the respect they deserve. That's how I "wish them to act" so it absolutely follows, based on your words, that someone who doesn't "wish to act the way you wish them to" doesn't want to respect those minorities. Easy logical reasoning to follow.

brigandish 7y ago
No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone so there's not much else to say about your argument, other than you might try showing more respect to those you disagree with in future.
- tomlock 7y ago
  You think you aren't, but you are when you say the categories of "male, female and 3rd sex" are appropriate for simplifying the "absurdities". You should show people who fit in your "absurd" minority sexual categories with more respect in future.
  - brigandish 7y ago
    Whether or not they are absurdities is obviously a contention, and hence, whether or not they are being disrespected. It's not contentious that you should show people you're in discussion with respect, nor that you have not shown said respect.
    - tomlock 7y ago
      So do you believe they're absurd?
      - brigandish 7y ago
        Do I believe what are absurd? I've already had enough equivocation for one thread, please be specific when you post. I looked at the first two lists of gender identities my search returned and there were plenty of absurd categories (like Maverique and Novigender). In addition, the idea that public policy and law should revolve around people choosing their identities on a day to day basis is, I believe, unworkable, if not absurd. The idea that people may be compelled by law to be forced to use language set by others is not absurd, it's horrifying. From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997 > It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech The true minority is the individual and this is the minority that is most at risk here.
        DanBC 7y ago
        You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly. He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom. > It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech For one thing this isn't anything like the first case where the courts have found that a company hasn't done something wrong for firing an employee for not saying what the company wants them to say. But also that judgment isn't saying anything of the sort. You're quoting an extremist Christian organisation who bring futile cases to court in order to make political points. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-questionable-ethics-of-the-christian-legal-centre/ https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu... The judgment is saying that when you're a doctor employed by a government department you'll have to obey the law and the government department's policies. Note that the judgment doesn't force this doctor to use any particular pronoun, it only says that the government department can fire him. And, in this particular context, everything about the meetings the doctor had with service users was "compelled" speech -- there's literally a template the doctor has to read from. His legal team didn't attempt a freedom of speech defence. They tried to use a discrimination against religious beliefs defence, and that failed because... > It was confirmed by the representatives at the start of the hearing that it was agreed that Dr Mackereth did not assert that he was treated less favourably than a person who, for reasons unrelated to Christianity or other belief refused to comply with the DWP’s gender reassignment or equal opportunities policy Here's the judgment: https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Judgment-Mackereth-DWP-Others-ET-191002.pdf https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-R...

brigandish 7y ago

No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone so there's not much else to say about your argument, other than you might try showing more respect to those you disagree with in future.

tomlock 7y ago
You think you aren't, but you are when you say the categories of "male, female and 3rd sex" are appropriate for simplifying the "absurdities". You should show people who fit in your "absurd" minority sexual categories with more respect in future.
- brigandish 7y ago
  Whether or not they are absurdities is obviously a contention, and hence, whether or not they are being disrespected. It's not contentious that you should show people you're in discussion with respect, nor that you have not shown said respect.
  - tomlock 7y ago
    So do you believe they're absurd?
    - brigandish 7y ago
      Do I believe what are absurd? I've already had enough equivocation for one thread, please be specific when you post. I looked at the first two lists of gender identities my search returned and there were plenty of absurd categories (like Maverique and Novigender). In addition, the idea that public policy and law should revolve around people choosing their identities on a day to day basis is, I believe, unworkable, if not absurd. The idea that people may be compelled by law to be forced to use language set by others is not absurd, it's horrifying. From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997 > It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech The true minority is the individual and this is the minority that is most at risk here.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly. He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom. > It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech For one thing this isn't anything like the first case where the courts have found that a company hasn't done something wrong for firing an employee for not saying what the company wants them to say. But also that judgment isn't saying anything of the sort. You're quoting an extremist Christian organisation who bring futile cases to court in order to make political points. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-questionable-ethics-of-the-christian-legal-centre/ https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu... The judgment is saying that when you're a doctor employed by a government department you'll have to obey the law and the government department's policies. Note that the judgment doesn't force this doctor to use any particular pronoun, it only says that the government department can fire him. And, in this particular context, everything about the meetings the doctor had with service users was "compelled" speech -- there's literally a template the doctor has to read from. His legal team didn't attempt a freedom of speech defence. They tried to use a discrimination against religious beliefs defence, and that failed because... > It was confirmed by the representatives at the start of the hearing that it was agreed that Dr Mackereth did not assert that he was treated less favourably than a person who, for reasons unrelated to Christianity or other belief refused to comply with the DWP’s gender reassignment or equal opportunities policy Here's the judgment: https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Judgment-Mackereth-DWP-Others-ET-191002.pdf https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-R...