Well fuck.NineBerry wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:52 amNo. No one has banned anything. The Cafeteria in the Scottish parliament has decided to use the different name in their menus. That is all.Cunt wrote: ↑Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:33 amhttps://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10604 ... -workplace
THE Scottish Government has banned the use of the term gingerbread men, with Holyrood renaming the treats ‘persons’ in a bid to reduce sexism - amid claims the gender specific traditional name caused offence.
Can't you leave me with just a LITTLE outrage? Scots are NOT a protected group, as far as I understand, it's still fine to heap satire on them.
There are a lot of decisions available for perusal. They don't always tell the story.
Look into the NWT decisions, and you will see one name 'Portman' come up as complaintant frequently. Is this Portman person a grievance-specialist who is exploiting the system? Or a systematically oppressed person? (the answer isn't there, or otherwise available to you...the question is important)
I said that I didn't find any, and that I thought it was good news.i agree, if they are doing that. but if they issued fines because of what people said or wrote, wouldn't that be easy to find?
Belabour the point all you want though...I'm still convinced it is dangerous and unjust. The Rick Mehta case (the only example I can find of the 'chilling effect' of these laws making it out into the open) shows what happens the odd time when someone doesn't toe the line.
He was a tenured professer at Acadia, fired for speaking out. The university claims it was for a privacy breach, but refuses to hand over their documentns...oh, and the 'breach' was only a problem after an investigation into his 'problematic speech' was started upon the complaints of anonymous students.
Those problematic speech items were never defined, either.
Yup, which I admitted i didn't find.
I don't think that's a fair characterization of what pErvinalia said. I think it's fair to ask for examples.
I wonder though, how many people in Rick Mehta's position simply shut up when threatened, rather than going public and losing their livelihood...?
When they can go after your employer for your comments, do you think that makes the employer (sometimes a university) act as informal enforcement, while never showing up in any stats?
Your video shows a fair exposition of the concept. Still, it's a fair question to ask if anyone has been issued any orders to comply in the way described in the video. Even if there weren't, the text and potentialities of any piece of legislation is relevant - we don't have to wait for an injustice to be concerned about the possible effects of a bad law.
I consider 'protection of gender expression' this way - if I express a gender, it is when I use 'he' (for you) or 'she' (for my dog). If I choose to express satire by reversing your genders, for my amusement, then that is also protected.However, there still clearly is a difference between a potentiality and an actuality, and if nobody has actually been sanctioned or penalized, then that is different than if someone actually was sanctioned or penalized. Clearly, the actuality is worse than the potentiatlity. Both can be bad. But, clearly, if the cops are interpreting the law so as not to prohibit people from saying "I'm not going to use those pronouns" and nobody is getting sanctioned for refraining from using batshit pronouns, then one might reasonably conclude that the law as applied is not prohibiting that conduct.
To me, what pronoun you use is your 'gender expression', and what you wear is simply your fashion.
I doubt it would fly when pitted against a crying trannie, but with the new laws, most adults simply stay away from them whenever we can.
Knowing the pitfalls, my guess is that people will be more likely to avoid encounters with trans-anythings, in order to avoid being found afoul of this new law. Nothing to do with reality, as you pointed out, but instead to do with what people think the law means.
I'm frustrated because the examples don't matter NEARLY as much as the chilling effect I described.There is some grey area here - but at bottom - it's fair for pErvinalia and others to ask for examples because you didn't just say that it was a potential application of the law. You said this was one of the functions of the HRC, and that it was actually doing this. That's how I read it, anyway -- when asked for an example, you responded sort of like "oh, come on!"
For example, there is a law forbidding the use of 5 of the 7 words in my signature. What do you suppose the odds are that most folks would just avoid all 7, instead of bothering to figure out which 5 are verboten?
It's not the overt prosecution that is the largest effect. Have you looked into the Rick Mehta case? I know the CBC shared their perspective, but I have listened to his, and to some of his colleagues. The man is not allowed to speak about issues within his specialty, in a tenured position at a University. Isn't that a bit alarming? Shouldn't we wonder why it is that his words have been so obscured?
The HRC can suck ass, even if they haven't prosecuted anyone for mere speech in the last 5 years.
Or should we just allow media to label him, and accept that he is now not to be heard?