Trans women are not biological females. There. Said it.
As a libertarian I'm all in favour of personal freedom - whether this consists of blokes wearing skirts and high heels and living as girls, or girls wearing suits, sporting a Number One cut and living as blokes. It's fine. It really is. Do what you want; you can even take pills and have surgery to assume the look, so long as you have the means to sustain it. No one cares. But please don't ask me to perform feats of Orwellian mendacity in pretending that you are actually a member of the biological sex in which you have chosen to live.
What is really chilling about yesterday's landmark ruling for common sense in the Miller case is that the real issue has yet to be decided - the lawfulness of the 'College of Policing' guidance that has seen 120,000 wholly innocent citizens recorded on their semi-private computer system as guilty of 'non-crime hate incidents'. How dare they? Words and actions in this country are either criminal or they are lawful. If they are lawful, these nasty secret little power cabals such as the 'College of Policing' may be entitled to record them - but we are entitled to full knowledge of what may have been recorded against us, for making statements such as that in my first paragraph. These records must be fully open to personal inspection under the UK's own version of the GDPR, and the 'College of Policing' fully liable in civil law for any loss or damage caused.
It absolutely infuriates me that these secretive private organisations funded from our tax yet exempt from all accountability can take such liberties with our liberties. We must drag their dark little 'College of Policing' into the sunlight, subject it to full public accountability and put its self-serving capos before the appropriate parliamentary committees.
20 comments:
Your underlying argument is sound and I too despise all tax funded pressure groups.
However - and I talk from a singular experience (smoking room, Irish bar Amsterdam airport) - do not call them out! Vicious buggers,(regularly reinforced by liveleak videos of similar happenings in Brazil and the US).
Adult males can try to disguise their deep voice, but never their thudding great feet.
It's quite encouraging that we seem to have at least one judge who has some commonsense and doesn't believe in 6 impossible things before breakfast.
Personally, I don't think Trans should even be called "women." They weren't born female, so how could they possibly develop into a woman.
Trans-activism and the accompanying Police obsession with "hatey words" has really taken off since the Coalition Government pushed through Harriet Harman's Equality Act. The Act must be amended to ensure that Trans are legally differentiated from women. The law should not require the entire population to ignore biological FACTS which result in women being put at risk.
I recently received an invitation to have a routine smear test. The letter said I have the right to request that the procedure be carried out by a woman. It didn't mention that the "woman" who could be carrying it out could be a fully intact Trans (ie a man in a dress) and I would have no right to object. So I'm not having a smear test. Many others will make the same decision.
Once again, Brendan o'Neill over at Spiked has a blistering editorial about Labour's latest piece of Identitarian idiocy "The Purge of the Unwoke."
In my opinion there should be no 'hate crime' or 'racially motivated crime' etc. There is only crime or no crime. If people cause real harm then that's a crime and the motivation can be considered after conviction and during sentencing.
Hurt feelings do not count as 'harm' unless there is a sustained campaign of abuse (which may or may not be driven by 'hate' - it could be driven by obsessive love).
This whole 'progressive' agenda has been a disaster for democracy, law, and even just people getting on with each other.
It is not bringing us together, it is tearing us apart.
The Crown Prosecution Service's definition for 'hate crime' has to be removed from the Animal Farm-like wall of words that has been created.
We now have only to be 'perceived' as unfriendly - by the offended and anybody remotely involved with that individual - for our actions to be considered a hate crime.
The whole PC stuff is - as George Carlin suggested - "fascism dressed up as manners."
A refreshing change on the part of the judge - and I just wonder if we are seeing one of those 'tides in the affairs of man' moments.
I agree pretty well a hundred percent, Raedwald.
Language evolves by social usage. I'm quite happy with the ones that I have learnt, their grammar, gender conformity etc. They belong to all of their speakers.
It is quite monstrous that a tiny minority should seek to mess about with that common heritage and to make certain grammatical constructions criminal offences.
This only seems to be a problem in the English-speaking world, because our tongue has minimal grammar. Most have far more sophisticated gender systems, and such inroads would be ludicrously impractical.
It's among several topics on which I agree with Jordan Peterson, incidentally.
I've had experience of dealing with the general public, and of the tedious problems created by these special pleaders too.
We real police officers are very nervous of the way the college of policing are gradually having more influence over our day to day role.
But the arse-kissing senior officers love it. It's somewhere for them to work after retirement.
Jaded
Seems to me that there is a plan afoot to create ever-decreasing levels of criminality in order to scoop up everyone into being potential criminals with the associated recording of information, DNA etc to get the 100% database on citizens that Government have sought ever since the possibility became apparent.
I suppose if old style coppers chased down a young vandal and shouted "c'm 'ere you little runt" he'd be allowed to get away with it.... despite it being detrimental to runts.
Looks to me like the CoP very much have their own agenda to use mis-policing to stir up public resentment and confusion as to the law.
A bright light needs shining into it pronto.
Clear, sensible guidelines are needed in law, and this latest common law ruling should serve us well.
According to the Trans Lobby your sex is assigned at birth by a doctor and is therefore mutable. No it isn't. Your sex is determined by observation.
gender n. Grammar a class (usually masculine, feminine, common or neuter) into which nouns and pronouns are placed in some languages distinguished by a particular inflection.
Steve
Anonymous said...
According to the Trans Lobby your sex is assigned at birth by a doctor and is therefore mutable. No it isn't. Your sex is determined by observation.
====================================================================
Odd then is it not that the hucksters never mention that the sex (not gender - until there exists scientific proof that "gender" exists seperate from "sex" the term for me will always be a grammatical term). can be determined in utero. Ergo it is not allocated at birth rather by the chromosomes you end up with.
BTW, I will not vote for any gove of any colour that puts trannies* before women (* word as used in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert... )
And if anyone calls me a CIS male, I shall report them for misgendering me. I am Male. Not "CIS male". Two can play at that shit
Elby, I understand your feelings, but the latest High Court ruling, means that correctly, the police would now not act on such a report - if they ever would have - nor one from a transexual making a similar complaint.
I have always used the person's name, or "this person" rather than any invented or other confusing pronoun, and will continue to do so.
As you say, gender is largely - but not necessarily - a grammatical term, and conveys no information about sexual behaviour. The adding of CIS and other qualifiers amounts to a gross invasion of one's personal and private life, because it does.
It's use by officialdom would amount to a breach of that Human Right therefore, I think.
And yet the same day, St Albans magistrates' court found a Mother guilty of hate speech for some mildly impolite tweets against a litigious trans 'woman'. The judge, going well beyond her remit, also took a dislike to the mother's Twitter handle.
Magistrates create no precedent, no common law.
The Hight Court does, Frank.
This, for me, comes down to the battle for free speech. Which I fear is already lost.
If speech is free, it is free, and that includes incitement, which is commonly used as the first caveat.
The second you add a "but" or an "except" to the statement "we have free speech, speech is no longer free.
People can take responsibility for the words they use, but there should never, in one million years, be a criminal record arising because someone else didn't like something you said.
IPP.
Read the judge's words.
He was clear that people have a right to freedom of expression - it's part of ECHR and the Human Rights Act - and was emphatic that the police's actions - not the law - had prejudiced the Applicant's right to it.
We must be very clear in that distinction. The confusion is made far too often, and anger directed at entirely the wrong people as a result.
But why should people - e.g. religious maniacs - be free to incite, say, murder?
No civilised country allows that, but perhaps you don't want civilsation?
@JPM when a Muslim demands murder of none believers the authorities do effall. When whitey demands the incite of such statements to be arrested (or deported) they themselves are charged for 'inciting'.
Clearly the right to free speech is colour conscious as well as trans.
No Dave, that isn't so.
Chowdhury, for instance, was very well briefed as to what was legal speech - although his meaning was not hard for the listener to deduce.
That's not to say that every sermon in whatever tongue is being monitored, on the other hand.
There's little that can be done about outside originated material on the web either.
DeeDee, yes that BoN piece is good. Although the Labour Party crap writes itself these days.
JPM: "British police burn in hell"...yep, not hard to deduce.
Why still mythering about Labour?
With a majority of eighty, any failure to repeal bad law, or to pass, or to badly amend it, is a hundred percent down to the Tories for the next nearly five years.
They've been in for ten already, and Labour have had no primary input at all in that time either.
In any case, the topic is about police conduct, not about the law, which has not been found wanting on this point.
JPM - I didn't say they did!
Post a Comment