Can you go to jail for ‘misgendering’? One British journalist is about to find out

Live and learn.

transequality.org...

a reply to: sapien82

This is the point I am always trying to make with freedom of speech / hate speech / misgendering / verbal assualts in the UK seem now to be based entirely on subjective states of consciousness So offense is subjective , how can a subjective state be proven in court when court relies on objective facts and evidence ?

I agree. Not just the UK though, increasingly here in the USA, and all over. It's all about perception and feelz. It's not insulting to acknowledge if someone is male or female, it's not insulting to use traditional proper pronouns, it's not insulting to give others the respect of a title -- unless someone says it is!

To be fair, this applies more to the Malicious Communications Act than to the Harassment Act. The latter seems to require sustained and repeated offensive acts, as opposed to the former which seems to include a single offensive act. I believe that's why Miranda Yardley's case was thrown out, because they could not establish a pattern of abuse. It was a single tweet or at least a single conversation on a public platform for discussion. At least that judge ruled with common sense and fairness!

We are now using slipper slope fallacy in our legal system hate speech : Person A says something , Person B gets offended and reports it , Court states , that if person A said this , the person B is offended and will therefore create X,Y, Z , or will commit , X, Y , Z

That's pretty much it. I have wondered though, since finding that Yardley was charged under a different act, if this isn't a matter of Trans Activists (in particular, those with Mermaids) throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. In other words, get individuals charged with every possible law on the books, see which one they can get a conviction for, and they have thus established a precedent (common law) to be followed each and every time for each and every person...

Hate speech law is a logical fallacy using subjective states of consciousness

Ya know, the saddest part of all this is that I don't believe for a minute that even the most staunch advocates of "trans women are women" tripe believe it. They know exactly what they are, and it's all gaslighting. They can re-define words in their own image all they want, but they know what their anatomy is -- and too many are quite happy to wield their appendage as a weapon against women.

It's just freaking gaslighting on steroids.

a reply to: sapien82

Aye , the law is no longer about justice !

It never was.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: Boadicea

Aye , the law is no longer about justice !

how can we use a subjective conscious state of "offense" to prove someones guilt when words do not cause physical harm
its a fact that no "c-fibres " fire in your brain to create the pain response !

So under corpus delicti , there is no injury , loss or harm in order to convict

You make a very valid point... and I expect this why so many Trans Activists claim that "misgendering" is literally an act of violence upon them, because refusing to use their preferred pronouns or reminding them that they have a penis triggers them to want to kill themselves.... at least that's their story and they're sticking to it! They had to find a "loophole" in the law so-to-speak in order to make it apply to them.

Likewise with Obama's directives re-define "woman" -- and therefore all single-sex spaces and Title IX protections -- to allow any/all men to self-identify as a "woman." Legal protections and rights for women now mean nothing, because "woman" has been re-defined (or un-defined, depending on how you look at it), to mean whatever a man wants it to mean!

laws have been subverted because of identity politics , however it appears they have been subverted , not to protect the individual , but the specific individuals , such as a political party .

You cant even criticise or make satire of a party

Yup. Quite the power play, eh?

originally posted by: InTheLight
Live and learn.

transequality.org...

U.S. Trans Survey and methodological flaws, or “garbage in, garbage out”

Among the methodological problems cited are:
-- Lack of definition and/or diagnosis (e.g., anyone/everyone self-identifies as "trans")
-- No controls on how many times one person responded
-- No controls on location of respondants (although specifically intended for the USA)
-- Marketed specifically to those who feel persecuted and marginalized and victimized
-- Leading and confusing questions

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: InTheLight
Live and learn.

transequality.org...

U.S. Trans Survey and methodological flaws, or “garbage in, garbage out”

Among the methodological problems cited are:
-- Lack of definition and/or diagnosis (e.g., anyone/everyone self-identifies as "trans")
-- No controls on how many times one person responded
-- No controls on location of respondants (although specifically intended for the USA)
-- Marketed specifically to those who feel persecuted and marginalized and victimized
-- Leading and confusing questions

The proof of harassment and persecution is in all the legal cases you have sourced in your threads.

a reply to: InTheLight

More freaking gaslighting:

The proof of harassment and persecution is in all the legal cases you have sourced in your threads.

The judge in Miranda Yardley's case threw it out because there was no case. No harassment. No persecution. Just truth and honesty.

The TRUTH is between their legs. Truth is not persecution. Truth is not harassment. Truth is just truth.

As in trans women are men NOT WOMEN!!!

On the other hand, the Trans Activists who have de-funded a rape crisis center in Vancouver because it wouldn't let men in is true harassment and persecution.

The Trans Activists who had Julie Bindel and others removed from an event advertised as "welcome to everyone" is true harassment and persecution.

The Trans Activists who just had a conference shut down on placing men who identify as women in women's prisons is true harassment and persecution.

The Trans Activist who was just removed as keynote speaker for urging other Trans Activists to "throatpunch" women is true harassment and persecution.

I could go on, but I don't need to. The truth is out there, and more and more people are becoming aware -- and angered -- by it all.

a reply to: Boadicea

If the proof is between their legs, then transwomen that have undergone surgery, are indeed women.

You can't have it both ways.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Boadicea

If the proof is between their legs, then transwomen that have undergone surgery, are indeed women.

You can't have it both ways.

Uh... surgical scars... DUH!!!

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: Boadicea

If the proof is between their legs, then transwomen that have undergone surgery, are indeed women.

You can't have it both ways.

Uh... surgical scars... DUH!!!

Just turn and walk away.

Actually, I am sure the scars are no worse than women who have had breast augmentation or face lifts.

a reply to: InTheLight

Actually, I am sure the scars are no worse than women who have had breast augmentation or face lifts.

Worse? Better? Whatever. Except in an aesthetic sense, scars just are. One isn't worse than the other. Only the trauma that caused the scar can be qualified as "worse" (or not).

For example, I have a scar on my belly from emergency surgery to remove a tubal pregnancy that had ruptured, caused internal bleeding, and exploded my ovary into a jillion pieces, damn near killing me and severely compromise my reproductive system; that scar represents a much worse trauma than the man who wants to chop his dick off to play "woman."

In a hundred years, anyone digging up the bones of a trans woman will identify that body as male -- with or without his penis and testicles. And in a hundred years, anyone digging up my bones will identify my body as a woman -- with or without my uterus, ovaries, and fallopian tubes.

But, of course, the truth is that most men identifying as trans don't want to chop their dick off. They like their dick... their "laydee" dick. Specifically, the gender "euphoric" autogynephiles. The gender euphoric just lovelovelove their "laydee" dick.

The truly gender dysphoric are the ones most inclined to want to remove the body part that causes so much grief and pain -- the transsexuals, who are increasingly speaking out against the Trans Activist nonsense. Like Miranda Yardley. Who know and say that they are men, not women, and always will be.

There is objective reality. And subjective stereotypes.

a reply to: InTheLight

legal definition of male is " Of the masculine sex; of the sex that begets young."

and female

"The sex which conceives and gives birth to young. Also a member of suchsex. The term is generic, but may have the specific meaning of “woman.”

However these are legal definitions in the US , and not the UK , I dont think we have a legal definition of male or female in the UK other than the standard meaning of the word!

the transgender community can apply for a Gender recognition certificate

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 enables transsexual people to apply to receive a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). A Gender Recognition Certificate is the document issued that shows that a person has satisfied the criteria for legal recognition in the acquired gender. The Act gives people with gender dysphoria legal recognition as members of the sex appropriate to their gender identity allowing them to acquire a Gender Recognition Certificate. People whose birth was registered in the United Kingdom or abroad with the British authorities are able to obtain a birth certificate showing their recognised legal sex.

[2] People granted a full GRC are from the date of issue, considered in the eyes of the law to be of their 'acquired gender' in most situations. Two main exceptions to trans people's legal recognition are that the descent of peerages will remain unchanged (important only for primogeniture inheritance) and a right of conscience for Church of England clergy (who are normally obliged to marry any two eligible people by law).

Additionally, sports organisations are allowed to exclude transsexual people if it is necessary for 'fair competition or the safety of the competitors'; courts are allowed to disclose an individual's trans status; employers are allowed to exclude trans people as a 'genuine occupational requirement'; and organisations are allowed to exclude trans people from single sex or separate sex services as 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. The example given in the Act is a group counselling session provided for female victims of sexual assault.[3][4]

Looks like they are making the right moves legally in the UK with regards to the GRC and protecting natal women's rights

I am not sure how this applies in US law , as they have clearly defined the legal status of "male" or "female"

a reply to: Boadicea

It's a brave new world..

New pickup lines include: "so.....how long have you been a girl/boy?"

Fun times to be alive.

Peace

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Boadicea

It's a brave new world..

New pickup lines include: "so.....how long have you been a girl/boy?"

Fun times to be alive.

Peace

And won't you be taken aback if the answer is "I was born both"?

a reply to: InTheLight

I dont agree that they are women, they never will be , how can a man or a woman state that they feel like a woman or a man , if they have never existed or experienced being a man or a woman , it is impossible

of course they can say they "feel" like they are the opposite sex or that they identify as the opposite sex.

they have no real world experience or "feeling" of being the opposite sex as they have never existed as such

Humans will never be able to change their sex completely until the point where we can upload our consciousness into a machine and then download it into a host body of the opposite sex

e.g. when someone dies they donate their body to medical science and we have the technology to transfer consciousness
only then will "gender dysphoria " sufferers be able to transfer their consciousness into a host body and be that sex.
Would they be assigned a body or would they be given the choice to pick which one they like ?

everything else is external and aesthetic and is simply using the constructed outward expression of ones desired gender , they are not an never will be the opposite sex because of biology

Their DNA tells a very different story

a reply to: sapien82

I wonder what answer we would hear from a true hermaphrodite; there are three categories; true, pseudo female and pseudo male.

originally posted by: operation mindcrime
a reply to: Boadicea

It's a brave new world..

New pickup lines include: "so.....how long have you been a girl/boy?"

Oh dear... you're right! I am soooooooooooo glad I don't have to deal with today's dating world!!!

Fun times to be alive.

Peace

Interesting to be sure!!!

a reply to: InTheLight

well if they were being honest , then they would simply answer "intersex" , if they had researched their abnormality then they would know that they are undifferentiated , and have sexual organs of both male and female

however their DNA will still show them to be either male or female
its only their phenotypic expression which shows as both , or as with others favours one more than others .

If you note that its stated as Abnormal , because normally children are born male or female

why then is "abnormal" not used with gender dysphoria , oh yeh because activists have made us adhere to appeals to emotion !

because people dont like being described as abnormal , but it is exactly what it is , Abnormal !

However abnormal they are still humans with emotions , and rights
but I don't agree with changing laws in order to protect these humans emotional states
especially when scientific research seeks to understand and end the suffering of people who have these birth defects or abnormalities
or syndromes . Especially when they try to shut down and silence science just because the language that science uses "offends" or hurts someones feelings.

"abnormal" "birth defect" "psychological condition"

people feel this victimises them because of negative social aspects of being branded as "abnormal"

We cant change the language that science uses , because it is objective fact

yes , in social settings, be careful of what you say to people, but we cant stifle research or scientific progress by changing the legality of language or the usage of language when describing objective biological facts

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: InTheLight

well if they were being honest , then they would simply answer "intersex" , if they had researched their abnormality then they would know that they are undifferentiated , and have sexual organs of both male and female

however their DNA will still show them to be either male or female
its only their phenotypic expression which shows as both , or as with others favours one more than others

What if it is all down to hormones?

Read the 46, XY INTERSEX part.

medlineplus.gov...

www.yourhormones.info...

a reply to: sapien82

...they are undifferentiated , and have sexual organs of both male and female...

I have read that even among true intersex people, they can either produce eggs or sperm or neither, but cannot produce both.

I can't help but think that if there was someone who could produce both eggs and sperm, that immaculate conception would indeed be possible...

Or maybe I think too much!