This is now very little ability to disagree with the Left

[Shady]

27 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I just don't know what's more ridiculous this issue, getting excited for it or against it.  If men and women want to compete against themselves or one another who am I to argue?  In any case I only spend about 0.005% of my time watching sports so...

They don't want to, but it's forced upon them.  Trans women (biological men) are taking over women sports.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, Shady said:

They don't want to, but it's forced upon them.  Trans women (biological men) are taking over women sports.

I can see how that would suck if you're transphobic.

[Shady]

Just now, eyeball said:

I can see how that would suck if you're transphobic.

Not really.  It sucks if you're a woman, having to compete against biological men.  Trans women (biological men) are breaking all the records previously held by actual women.  They're also taking scholarships, etc.  Anyone with half a brain can see the problem with this. 

[Moonbox]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"It is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment," he continued.

"The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society."

So, she wants to use disrespectful language at work and she got fired.  I don't think that is really remarkable.

She wasn't using it at work.  She was tweeting.  Though I don't support her opinion, I do think it's remarkable that she lost her job for what amounts to disagreeing with the new and changing definitions of "woman/man".  Like Peterson, she didn't feel she should/could be compelled to use terminology she didn't agree with.  This was a precedent-setting case and it serves as a warning to anyone who'd speak out against or question new gender definitions, while emboldening those who wield terms like transphobia as a weapon to muzzle and punish opposing viewpoints.  

Though hardly academic, I found this article from the BBC interesting.

  https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-42652947

It's celebrity Big-Brother, so take that for what you will, but the article is about one of the contestants (rapper Ginuwine) explaining that he wouldn't date a transgender woman.  Some of the responses (on Twitter and elsewhere) for his viewpoint were:

"If you have a sexual preference that discriminates against transgender men or transgender women, you are transphobic.  This is fact."

and

"What Ginuwine said was that of an ignorant person who has not been with a trans woman before. It was more of an ignorance, fed by a media that often depicts trans women in a sensationalised way, with strong bone structure and husky low-baritone voices," Miss SaHHara says.

"The majority of straight men are worried about what society thinks of them if they date a trans woman," she says. "Toxic masculinity makes them violent and rude about their attraction."

and then my favorite, from a Columbia University professor/doctor:

"There are hormonal sweet spots where trans women can transition and be effectively indistinguishable at a certain level from cisgender women," Dr Timmins says. "So being unwilling to date on the basis of someone being trans, rather than on the basis of individual stimuli is something I would personally call transphobic."

As I said before, there are precious few instances where the distinction between cis and transgender women even matters, but where it does, the current environment of public discourse is not conductive to a fair or even civil debate.  Even something as personal as specific sexual preference is subject to public attack from transgender advocates and academics.  I'd argue that calling someone transphobic and ignorant on the basis of their personal sexual preferences is itself discriminatory and demeaning, but Professor Timmins didn''t face censure or discipline.  The irony and double-standards are obvious, I think.  

 

[Moonlight Graham]

On 7/1/2020 at 7:42 PM, Argus said:

A university professor made the mistake of coming out with a study which said there was no link between racism and police shootings. Naturally he was forced to resign.

Cesario is the Michigan State psychology professor who co-authored the study published July 2019 that debunked the notion that police are more likely to shoot African-Americans. Hsu wrote on his blog that the paper concluded “there is no widespread racial bias in police shooting.” Professor Cesario received a small amount of funding for his research under Hsu’s leadership.

Cesario pointed out to The Wall Street Journal “we had no idea what the data was going to be, what the outcome was going to be, before we did this study.”

The “MSU communications team highlighted the mention in the June 9 edition of their email newsletter, InsideMSU. The next day, the Graduate Employees Union denounced Mr. Hsu. By June 11, editors of the newsletter had apologized ‘for including the item and for the harm it caused,’” the Journal reports.

The graduate union told The Fix that administrators should not share research that runs counter to public statements by the university.

“It is the union’s position that an administrator sharing such views is in opposition to MSU’s statements released supporting the protests and their root cause and aim,” Ackles wrote in an e-mail to The College Fix.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-study-that-found-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/

Universities exist for people to collaborate to learn knowledge.  When knowledge is politicized we all lose.  There's not much worse than being considered a racist, people lose jobs over it, and people with a political agenda have recognized this and are weaponizing it for political purposes.

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

 

As I said before, there are precious few instances where the distinction between cis and transgender women even matters, but where it does, the current environment of public discourse is not conductive to a fair or even civil debate.  Even something as personal as specific sexual preference is subject to public attack from transgender advocates and academics.  

I agree that it's not fair, but moral values don't fall into geometric patterns.  It's not fair, either, that the person in question disbelieves that trans women are women. It's just a value or opinion.  If you think that Christians are evil, how can I argue against your values ?

How do you debate whether people are equal or not?  It's an opinion, in the end.

 

I don't believe that someone should be fired for their beliefs, generally, but the ruling specifically talked about her 'referring' to others, which one does in the workplace, ie. Talks about people and uses pronouns.

[eyeball]

40 minutes ago, Shady said:

Not really.  It sucks if you're a woman, having to compete against biological men.  Trans women (biological men) are breaking all the records previously held by actual women.  They're also taking scholarships, etc.  Anyone with half a brain can see the problem with this. 

Obviously.

[Argus]

16 hours ago, Moonbox said:

That leads to the next point, which is whether trans women are women.  To say that they are, you're accepting that "woman" is gender identity concept, rather than a biological distinction.  It used to just mean a person with two X chromosomes (or as JK Rowling would say, people who menstruate).  The latter definition, however, is "not worthy of respect in democratic society" (as per Forstater case ruling) and publicly holding that belief can, according to British courts, legally get you fired.  There you have a common law precedent of the sort of censorship that I, at least, find troubling. 

The whole trans issue is a minefield for anyone who steps into it. Witness Mario Lopez, who said last week that he thought parents shouldn't take seriously a small child feeling like they are the wrong gender, because small kids mentalities are changing all the time and they don't really know what they are. Now he's had to make a grovelling apology after being denounced as a horrible, evil transphobe. No one in the public eye dares disagree with the mob.

Yet we know that the idea kids might think they're the wrong gender is wrong in the vast majority of cases. Some get over it, while others turn out to be gay or lesbian. The weird thing about the trans activists is they take the most conservative view of gender traits and believe if a kid exhibits traits of the other gender they must be subjected to drugs and counseling. There are a lot of gay people troubled over this, who say THEY would have wound up being forced to change genders given how they acted in their youth or as children. But no one is allowed to question the mob.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5707468/mario-lopez-dangerous-transgender-children/

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. I am.  Also I would say that Climate Change opposition isn't a conservative viewpoint but more of a conspiracy theory.  If that's a strident position then ok.

There have been a number of climate activists who have outright admitted to having lied/exagerated. They too have been denounced as blasphemers by the movement. The latest of these is Michael Shelenberger,  a lifelong leftist activist who has spent years fighting the the good fight on behalf of climate change and now is recanting.

"On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem. Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis.’ But mostly I was scared.”

“I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-forbes-falls-to-cancel-culture-as-it-erases-environmentalists-mea-culpa/wcm/370ca87c-37c3-4376-8e95-78231ae5fd46/

14 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

 I become strident when I see hysterical posts sometimes.

Strident is basically no different from hysterical.

[Moonbox]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree that it's not fair, but moral values don't fall into geometric patterns.  It's not fair, either, that the person in question disbelieves that trans women are women. It's just a value or opinion.  If you think that Christians are evil, how can I argue against your values ?

Why is the belief that trans women aren't women unfair?  It's not just a value opinion.  There are pretty straightforward, objective biological differences.  The only value judgment here is whether or not you choose to accept the expanded/updated definition of "woman".  The people who don't, however, will have their views and language and opinions policed.  You only have make one small adjustment to the language, however,  to see how absurd the argument is.  Add a prefix or an adjective to the word "woman" and are you still violating someone's human dignity? Forstater should have said a biological man can never become a cisgender woman? 

Of course her meaning and intention haven't changed, but how to the Courts enforce that sort of more nuanced language?  Much of the Court's reasoning falls apart with these tweaks.

Your comment on "evil" Christians is just silly moral equivalency.  

Quote

How do you debate whether people are equal or not?  It's an opinion, in the end.

In some senses yes, but then in many no.  Women and Men are equal in the eyes of the Law, of course, but they're not the same.  That's not an opinion.  

Quote

I don't believe that someone should be fired for their beliefs, generally, but the ruling specifically talked about her 'referring' to others, which one does in the workplace, ie. Talks about people and uses pronouns.

It wasn't a workplace issue.  It was her tweeting.  If you care to understand it more, you can see exactly what she wrote and how it all went down here:

https://medium.com/@MForstater/i-lost-my-job-for-speaking-up-about-womens-rights-2af2186ae84

This is censorship, and it's an overreach.  

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Moonbox

[WestCanMan]

The Police are insinuating that Rebel News will be the ones to pay the price if Antifa crybabies throw a tantrum, instead of dealing with the hostile Antifa members. 

https://www.rebelnews.com/showdown_rebel_news_takes_on_antifa_mob_mall_cops_and_politically_correct_police?fbclid=IwAR1hh1PAHWDziwh2JyIGstMxYFgXPHpqEJXitgU_AE4Y9XtLPHC887JbvAE

[WestCanMan]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

"On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem. Until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I referred to climate change as an ‘existential’ threat to human civilization, and called it a ‘crisis.’ But mostly I was scared.”

“I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.”

The grand solar minimum that was supposed to start in April of this year, +/- 6 months, is supposed to drop the average global temperatures by as much as .3 degrees Celsius. 

The global warming hoax was about to be exposed until covid came along, now the reduced temperatures will no doubt be incorrectly attributed to a reduction in carbon emissions. 

 

[WestCanMan]

11 hours ago, Shady said:

Not really.  It sucks if you're a woman, having to compete against biological men.  Trans women (biological men) are breaking all the records previously held by actual women.  They're also taking scholarships, etc.  Anyone with half a brain can see the problem with this. 

Exactly.

It sucks to be a woman who spent years of hard work and dedication getting ready to peak at one event, and then having to compete against a person who had ten years of male testosterone coursing through their bodies.

It's no different for those women than it is for men to have to compete against steroid junkies.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, Moonbox said:

1. Why is the belief that trans women aren't women unfair? 

2. The only value judgment here is whether or not you choose to accept the expanded/updated definition of "woman". 

3. The people who don't, however, will have their views and language and opinions policed. 

4. Your comment on "evil" Christians is just silly moral equivalency.  

5. Women and Men are equal in the eyes of the Law, of course, but they're not the same.  .  

6. It wasn't a workplace issue.  It was her tweeting.  If you care to understand it more, you can see exactly what she wrote and how it all went down here:

1. It's a value judgment, so not fair or unfair.

2. Right.

3. That's right.

4. What are you talking about?  I don't believe that about Christians obviously.  Yes, it's moral equivalency.

5. You could also decide that in your opinion women are inferior.  You could also tweet this opinion.  Then what?

6. I went back and read the original judgement.  This person sincerely believes trans women aren't women and goes out of her way to make sure everyone knows that.  She even misgenders people.  If you did that where I work you would be fired.  If you did it off site they would have a word with you, pay you to quit or not renew your contract.

[Army Guy]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Exactly.

It sucks to be a woman who spent years of hard work and dedication getting ready to peak at one event, and then having to compete against a person who had ten years of male testosterone coursing through their bodies.

It's no different for those women than it is for men to have to compete against steroid junkies.

This is one example ,of the many lobby groups who have gathered the power of politicians ,and law makers to change laws and policies, in their favor, despite how these changes reflect on other groups in this case to have the ability to practice a sport or competition on a fair and level playing field. It is more important in the eyes of the law,  that any persons that identify as a  women or the many forms of women they all have the same opportunity, even though transwomen do not share the same chromosome , nor the same body type... for now those people that medical science call women who want a level and fair decision are told to bad....rub some dirt on it, and carry on....do something else....which many are....The sad part is this, are we going backwards when we talk about equality for women....women have strived years to get this far, shit look at women's hockey, in most cases better than the men's …........to now have it all squashed because a few men now identifying as women either honestly or in an attempt to break some records and names in the books say so....I surprised more women have not spoken up on this, maybe it is not important after all.   

And yet they have decided that gender is what ever you want it to be I think at last count over 72 versions of genders, not identifying as man or women with more being created as we speak, in some cases they say it is indefinite .... it is confusing to say the least, why do we not treat them all the same....and have 72 different leagues for all players to play on a level playing field what a shit show that would be. What a logistical night mare that would be.... Hockey night in crazy town would be a blast I think ........medical science really opened up Pandora's box when they found a way to do gender reassignment surgery... 

[bush_cheney2004]

55 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. It's a value judgment, so not fair or unfair.

....6. I went back and read the original judgement.  This person sincerely believes trans women aren't women and goes out of her way to make sure everyone knows that.  She even misgenders people.  If you did that where I work you would be fired.  If you did it off site they would have a word with you, pay you to quit or not renew your contract.

 

Sometimes it is not a value judgement at all, but science, as in biology.   "Follow the science" only matters for some issues though, right ?

To this point, I was watching a re-run biopic about General Grant tonight and a pharma commercial came on for a new HIV prophylactic drug.   It had the standard disclaimers about risks and doctor prescription, but this one had a new twist...

 

Quote

"this <insert drug name> is not for use in people assigned female at birth who are at risk of getting HIV from vaginal sex."

 

Obviously, this is a biological challenge for those who insist that all trans women are women.   Or should the scientists be fired ?

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Or should the scientists be fired ?

It would be the marketing company that would be fired, but no.

[ironstone]

With the "trans" subject  confusion is everywhere. According to Progressives there are dozens of genders! How is any average person supposed to be fully up to speed on this ever-growing list?

https://apath.org/63-genders/

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users

https://dudeasks.com/how-many-genders-are-there-in-2020/

Seriously?

Compounding the confusion is the apparent ability of Progressives to identify as any gender and/or race that they fancy at the moment. Will this soon include altogether different species as well? Will it ever end?

[WestCanMan]

9 minutes ago, ironstone said:

With the "trans" subject  confusion is everywhere. According to Progressives there are dozens of genders! How is any average person supposed to be fully up to speed on this ever-growing list?

https://apath.org/63-genders/

https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/02/heres-a-list-of-58-gender-options-for-facebook-users

https://dudeasks.com/how-many-genders-are-there-in-2020/

Seriously?

Compounding the confusion is the apparent ability of Progressives to identify as any gender and/or race that they fancy at the moment. Will this soon include altogether different species as well? Will it ever end?

They don't understand that you can be an individual within part of a group. They think that every person is a sex unto their own.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It would be the marketing company that would be fired, but no.

 

So fire the messenger to suppress the underlying biological (scientific) message ?    There is a growing understanding for transgender health that specifically "markets" the scientific facts and impact of birth sex assignment differences, and not only for pharma, acute/chronic conditions, disease, etc.   Firing the messenger does not change the biological facts of such matters, despite the social and political pressure to do so.

Disagreement has come to the point of erasing such discussion entirely and "firing" those who do, which is consistent with your position.   The very term cisgender is now under attack,  as it perpetuates the biological differences that cannot be ignored....unless one fires all the messengers.

 

[Michael Hardner]

51 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

1. So fire the messenger to suppress the underlying biological (scientific) message ?     

2. ...unless one fires all the messengers.

 

1. Yes, although I am not advocating for that response.  I'm telling you who they WOULD fire.

2. By the time they fire the last firm, the window of shame will have moved enough to hire the first one again.

 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The grand solar minimum that was supposed to start in April of this year, +/- 6 months, is supposed to drop the average global temperatures by as much as .3 degrees Celsius. 

The global warming hoax was about to be exposed until covid came along, now the reduced temperatures will no doubt be incorrectly attributed to a reduction in carbon emissions. 

 

Damn that COVID, eh?  It's almost like they planned it!

Seriously though...

I think we're still working on the CO2 levels we reached a decade ago, so I don't see anyone with any credibility trying to blame a sudden decrease in temperature on COVID-19.  What they will do is try and use it as an example of how we might affect the climate a decade from now.  I don't see it happening though.

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

 What they will do is try and use it as an example of how we might affect the climate a decade from now.  I don't see it happening though.

Seems there's still lots of potential for COVID to knock the economy even farther on it's ass which could have an even worse impact on the environment if COVID is used as an excuse to abandon environmental concerns.  Look how many people seem willing to abandon their concern for COVID and just put up with it as an excuse to save the economy.  It's a little ironic if not a little quaint when you consider how bent out of shape people get over other things like gender.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Seems there's still lots of potential for COVID to knock the economy even farther on it's ass which could have an even worse impact on the environment if COVID is used as an excuse to abandon environmental concerns.  Look how many people seem willing to abandon their concern for COVID and just put up with it as an excuse to save the economy.  It's a little ironic if not a little quaint when you consider how bent out of shape people get over other things like gender.

Eh?

You just needed to write something, didn't you?  Bored?

Edited July 4, 2020 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Bored?

Maybe, which I'm actually thankful for I suppose. Who needs interesting times?