The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Heathen Hammer]

The reason behind outrage of Trudeau's blackface story was the fact that he has rather strong double standards - if anyone in the government had that leak about them, trudeau would immediately demand that they resign. But he himself can do whatever the hell he wants, because his daddy was a Prime Minister too. So the whole "trudeau isn't racist" thing, Pierre himself was actually cheering for Axis side in WW2, so I wouldn't be surprised that his "anti-racism" is merely a charade to get the least intelligent segment of population to vote for him just like it was the case with his Hitler-supporting father.

[mishkin]

As far as I know nobody really cared too much. The issue was minor (a costume party twenty tears ago), it was immediately stopped ("I am so sorry") and apparently outside of North America only conservatives looking for someone to attack care about him.

[Love Mountain]

As far as I know nobody really cared too much. The issue was minor (a costume party twenty tears ago), it was immediately stopped ("I am so sorry") and apparently outside of North America only conservatives looking for someone to attack care about him.

Imagine that. A politician quickly admitting wrong-doing and people quickly forgetting about it.

[Heathen Hammer]

As far as I know nobody really cared too much. The issue was minor (a costume party twenty tears ago), it was immediately stopped ("I am so sorry") and apparently outside of North America only conservatives looking for someone to attack care about him.

That's not the point. There are plenty of reasons to bash trudeau, which is pretty much every aspect of his policy, with exception of weed legalization (and that only partially since only thanks to Conservative Doug Ford, Ontario was the only province where it was done in somewhat coherent way).
But it is the hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do", which is the reason why public was outraged over the whole blackface thing. Same reason why this moron keeps blabbering about "climate emergency" while directly contributing to damaging the environment and allying himself with factions and countries that do. Complete lack of self-awareness, combined with lack of intelligence which goes for both trudeau and his direct supporters.

[conon394]

Pierre himself was actually cheering for Axis side in WW2

He was looks a bit more a non intervention type and wondering if Canada had to fight the UK's wars. Considering your opinion on western interventions now I would think you would be a fan.

[Heathen Hammer]

He was looks a bit more a non intervention type and wondering if Canada had to fight the UK's wars. Considering your opinion on western interventions now I would think you would be a fan.

Again, the point is that Pierre's love of liberalism and equality is just as fake as his alleged son's.

[conon394]

Again, the point is that Pierre's love of liberalism and equality is just as fake as his alleged son's.

Is it I am not clear a how your poor point proves that.

[Heathen Hammer]

Because they both do things that contradict their own ideology and give themselves a pass for things they would never give a pass to others:

There are plenty of reasons to bash trudeau, which is pretty much every aspect of his policy, with exception of weed legalization (and that only partially since only thanks to Conservative Doug Ford, Ontario was the only province where it was done in somewhat coherent way).
But it is the hypocrisy of "do as I say, not as I do", which is the reason why public was outraged over the whole blackface thing. Same reason why this moron keeps blabbering about "climate emergency" while directly contributing to damaging the environment and allying himself with factions and countries that do. Complete lack of self-awareness, combined with lack of intelligence which goes for both trudeau and his direct supporters.

[conon394]

How you have declared that but I see no links no facts or anything. I

Let's stick with the Elder. "his Hitler-supporting father"

OK facts please.

Same reason why this moron keeps blabbering about "climate emergency" while directly contributing to damaging the environment and allying himself with factions and countries that do. Complete lack of self-awareness, combined with lack of intelligence which goes for both trudeau and his direct supporters.

OK again without specific references I got no ideal besides you want ridge intellectual purity? That either means you never get elected or end like Hitler or Pol Pot.

[Heathen Hammer]

Its literally the post above: trudeau does things that go directly against his own ideology and gives himself a pass for things he'd never let go for others.
I don't think defending trudeau is a good hill to die on even for a liberal.
At the very least, if you are going to defend a corrupt demagogue such as trudeau, you could at least post something factual instead of just "criticizing him makes no sense".

[alhoon]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...sgender-tweets

" A researcher who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women cannot change their biological sex has lost a test case because her opinions were deemed to be “absolutist”.
[...]
Forstater, 45, a tax expert, was a visiting fellow at the Centre for Global Development (CGD), an international thinktank that campaigns against poverty and inequality. Her contract at the charitable organisation, which is based in Washington and London, was not renewed in March after a dispute over publicising her views on social media."

A woman lost her job because... she dared say the following:
"My belief as i set out in my witness statement is that sex is a biological fact & is immutable. There are two sexes. Men are male. Women are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life"
https://twitter.com/MForstater/statu...98007517388802

Such heresy cannot be tolerated in tax experts apparently. I fail to see how on earth stating that (scientific fact) would affect a tax expert's job. We're not talking social workers, we're talking about the opinion of a tax expert.
As a note, she didn't go out of her way to bash transgendered or anything but the judge thought she would based on tweets like the above. She didn't have done that, but the judge able to divine the future knew she would.
Since the future-telling judge chose to ask the heavens what she would do in the future instead of find the lottery numbers, Rowling has voiced her support for the evil tax expert.
Progressives in Tweeter were quick to jump and of transophobia.

We live in very weird times. My condolences to the 95% of English that have to deal with the crap of the 5%.
Keep doing that and soon you would have a backlash from conservatives punishing the progressives for that tiny, loud, annoying 5%

[Aexodus]

The important thing about this case is essentially that ‘philosophical ideas’ are protected, as in you can’t fire people for them. The judge then decided that it wasn’t a philosophical idea and was instead speech ‘not worthy of respect nor belongs in democracy’. Pretty outspoken stuff.

TDLR, saying sex is immutable is against human rights.

[Gromovnik]

Good. She deserved to get fired. Plus, the whole thing is pretty funny.

[Cope]

The important thing about this case is essentially that ‘philosophical ideas’ are protected, as in you can’t fire people for them. The judge then decided that it wasn’t a philosophical idea and was instead speech ‘not worthy of respect nor belongs in democracy’. Pretty outspoken stuff.

TDLR, saying sex is immutable is against human rights.

One potential solution would be to introduce an Australian style religious freedom bill which included concrete protections for what you refer to as "philosophical" ideas.

[Love Mountain]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...sgender-tweets

" A researcher who lost her job at a thinktank after tweeting that transgender women cannot change their biological sex has lost a test case because her opinions were deemed to be “absolutist”.
[...]
Forstater, 45, a tax expert, was a visiting fellow at the Centre for Global Development (CGD), an international thinktank that campaigns against poverty and inequality. Her contract at the charitable organisation, which is based in Washington and London, was not renewed in March after a dispute over publicising her views on social media."

A woman lost her job because... she dared say the following:
"My belief as i set out in my witness statement is that sex is a biological fact & is immutable. There are two sexes. Men are male. Women are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life"
https://twitter.com/MForstater/statu...98007517388802

Such heresy cannot be tolerated in tax experts apparently. I fail to see how on earth stating that (scientific fact) would affect a tax expert's job. We're not talking social workers, we're talking about the opinion of a tax expert.
As a note, she didn't go out of her way to bash transgendered or anything but the judge thought she would based on tweets like the above. She didn't have done that, but the judge able to divine the future knew she would.
Since the future-telling judge chose to ask the heavens what she would do in the future instead of find the lottery numbers, Rowling has voiced her support for the evil tax expert.
Progressives in Tweeter were quick to jump and of transophobia.

We live in very weird times. My condolences to the 95% of English that have to deal with the crap of the 5%.
Keep doing that and soon you would have a backlash from conservatives punishing the progressives for that tiny, loud, annoying 5%

I don't think she was "fired". She didn't have her contract renewed. While the functional difference is obviously non-existent, there is a distinction between the two. She then went through some kind of legal process (forgive the imprecise nature of the terminology but I am not British nor am I acquainted with the British court system) to gain protection for her "beliefs", under the Equality Act of 2010. She was denied, and there is a 26 page report here explaining the decision. The report also informs us of the precise nature of Forstater's "beliefs", their impact, and whether the beliefs are accurate. I'll summarize.

The judge gave a brief overview of her employment history, of her beliefs and political activism on Twitter, and of how her views evolved over time. In particular, she emphasizes the biological nature of sex and how it is immutable and genetically determined at birth. She then expresses her concern about how acceptance of transgender people in regards to law and other aspects of society, could undermine the safety of women and of women's rights in general. The nature of her tweets, while not necessarily vitriolic, but nevertheless narrow-mindedly focused on possible "abuse" of the system by transgender people. Now I already have an issue with this, because this is the same kind of phony pretenses that closet racists use when talking about African Americans in United States. "I'm not racist, statistics can't be racist." Uh huh. Anyway...

The judge then evaluates whether Forstater's beliefs fall under the protection of EqA 2010. Before we go into what the Judge's ultimate conclusion was, I'd like to highlight the remarks of Dr. Fausto-Sterling, a professor of biology and gender studies, on the matter of the "immutability" of sex. His opinion was cited in this judgement.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"There has been a lot of new scientific research on this topic since the
1950s. But those looking to biology for an easy-to-administer definition of
sex and gender can derive little comfort from the most important of these
findings. For example, we now know that rather than developing under
the direction of a single gene, the foetal embryonic testes or ovaries
develop under the direction of opposing gene networks, one of which
represses male development while stimulating female differentiation and
the other of which does the opposite. What matters, then, is not the
presence or absence of a particular gene but the balance of power
among gene networks acting together or in a particular sequence.
This undermines the possibility of using a simple genetic test to determine
“true” sex.”

Other scientific evidence is available on pages 12-13 of the linked document. Back to the decision. One of the issues that stems from Forstater's beliefs, is her opposition to the Gender Recognition Act. Her tweet,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

“UK gov consultation on reforming the #GenderRecognitionAct -
proposes to dramatically change scope of the law; from requiring
medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria for change of sex on birth
certificate, to using the basis of 'self identification' ...
I share the concerns of @fairplaywomen that radically expanding
the legal definition of 'women' so that it can include both males and
females makes it a meaningless concept, and will undermine
women's rights & protections for vulnerable women & girls. ...
Some transgender people have cosmetic surgery. But most retain
their birth genitals. Everyone's equality and safety should be
protected, but women and girls lose out on privacy, safety and
fairness if males are allowed into changing rooms, dormitories,
prisons, sports teams.”

Here is the Judge's analysis of Forstater's views and why they view such views as problematic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is
incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so
far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be
the sex to which they have transitioned. I do not accept the Claimant's
contention that the Gender Recognition Act produces a mere legal fiction. It
provides a right, based on the assessment of the various interrelated
convention rights, for a person to transition, in certain circumstances, and
thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they
have transitioned. In Goodwin a fundamental aspect of the reasoning of the
ECHR was that a person who has transitioned should not be forced to identify
their gender assigned at birth. Such a person should be entitled to live as a
person of the sex to which they have transitioned. That was recognised in the
Gender Recognition Act which states that the change of sex applies for “all
purposes”. Therefore, if a person has transitioned from male to female and has
a Gender Recognition Certificate that person is legally a woman. That is not
something that the Claimant is entitled to ignore.

85. Many trans people are happy to discuss their trans status. Others are not
and/or consider it of vital importance not to be misgendered. The Equal
Treatment Bench Book notes the TUC survey that refers to people having their
transgender status disclosed against their will. The Claimant does not accept
that she should avoid the enormous pain that can be caused by misgendering
a persons, even if that person has a Gender Recognition Certificate. In her
statement she say of people with Gender Recognition Certificates “In many
cases people can identify a person’s sex on sight, or they may have known the
person before transition.... There is no general legal compulsion for people not
to believe their own eyes or to forget, or pretend to forget, what they already
know, or which is already in the public domain.” The Claimant's position is that
even if a trans woman has a Gender Recognition Certificate, she cannot
honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a
democratic society. It is incompatible with the human rights of others that have
been identified and defined by the ECHR and put into effect through the
Gender Recognition Act.

I encourage people to read the Judgement. I found it reasonable in its totality and I have no issues with the final decision. What I am against, is the current anti-Rowling campaign being waged on the Internet. As my, very vocal, Welsh friend says, " off, you're being quite the you know."

[Heathen Hammer]

It seems the judgement isn't reasonable, as in the whole "science is wrong if it offends feelings of LGBT folk" narrative is hardly rational or even logically coherent.
It seems that UK doesn't really have a system where individual is protected from being abused by the system for having specific beliefs. Not to mention that her job and subject matter hardly intertwine, hence why this is a good example of modern political witch-hunt.

[Love Mountain]

It seems the judgement isn't reasonable, as in the whole "science is wrong if it offends feelings of LGBT folk" narrative is hardly rational or even logically coherent.
It seems that UK doesn't really have a system where individual is protected from being abused by the system for having specific beliefs. Not to mention that her job and subject matter hardly intertwine, hence why this is a good example of modern political witch-hunt.

Always opening your mouth before you read anything.

[Heathen Hammer]

*yawns* So what do taxes have to do with a man identifying himself as a woman and visa versa?

[Love Mountain]

*yawns* So what do taxes have to do with a man identifying himself as a woman and visa versa?

Why are you bringing up taxes?

[alhoon]

Why are you bringing up taxes?

Because the woman fired from her job that her contract wasn't renewed because of her heretical views that a person can be a man or a woman was a tax specialist. Not a sociologist or psychologist etc.