MoD language guide

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
My bold, in spades. I'll tell you of a couple of soldiers, neither of whom I met. The difference between cheese and chalk. I'll call them soldier A and soldier W.
I first heard about soldier A a few years ago, and couldn't believe what I was hearing. He was suing the MOD due to being verbally abused! Not sure if it was racial or he was ABCD... what ever, irrelevant. My first thought was, 'Does he think that should he be captured, the enemy are only going to call him names!?' RTU'd civvy street.
Soldier W was in that unique category, being captured by the enemy. Unfortunately he didn't Beat the Clock, a game show on TV too. He was found hanging by his thumbs, with his feet clear of the ground, to allow for the fire underneath him. RIP Choccy.

We had a rather interesting talk from our S/ray that evening. He informed us we could all be broken some sooner than others, but we would break. He then suggested some techniques we could use to help us hold out longer. He then asked, asked not ordered, us to hold on as long as we could should we be captured, to allow for codes, patrols to be changed, thus saving someone else being compromised.

How do you think soldier A would react if the positions had been reversed?
I think soldier A would also have been set on fire but only as a last resort to stop the flow of information.

I'm sure if personnel could have sued the MoD years ago they would have. I wouldn't want my name on the paperwork for dosing up national servicemen with Sarin in this day & age.

Are there accounts of how commissars & political officers fared when away from the comfort & safety of the barracks? That might be an indicator of how things go in the future for a more politically divided army.
 
chromosomes do not define sex




even the presence / absence of SRY does not define sex.
The trouble is, @enpointe, is that legally it does. In the case of the article you're linked - next time please try and find one in English - patients are suffering from known gene mutations that cause their genetalia to develop incorrectly or only partially. That an individual - with no or malformed sexual organs thanks to damaged genes - can get pregnant also doesn't really support your general point.

This is significant as you're conflating two things. "My biological sex is unclear/confused" is vanishingly rare but an excellent candidate for affirmative action... one way. The other side of it - "my gender does not match my biological sex but I feel like I am trapped in the wrong body" - doesn't make the same strong argument, as there isn't the clear evidence of wrongness that means there is no need for further debate.

So what? This relates to the subject matter: Man is not very good at making objective and evidence-based judgements about the world around her. There's a series of articles on Quillete - which you are free to dismiss out of hand - on individuals transitioning, which suggest a strong pattern of peer reinforcement to their decision. We all look at this from the comfortable solidity of adulthood and forget how easy it is to be swayed into thinking something as a teenager, particularly in a society with rather strongly defined stereotypes of "male" and "female" (a topic for another day). Also, as @Sarastro points out, we have undercut the value of moral courage, which makes it even harder for someone who is confused about his or her sexuality to resist an argument that he or she is in fact transgender. Affirmative treatment presupposes that the individual has some form of gender dysphoria, whereas the reality may be simply general hormonally- and societally-induced confusion with a hefty dose of reinforcement from the good ideas club. With potentially life-changing results.
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
As it was put to me in a different context:

”Having someone close killed in a traffic accident is a personal tragedy. It does not make you an instant expert on road safety.”

Some people are perhaps sitting a little too close these things.
sadly for your theory


my Primary Qualifying Degree says otherwise ...

the evidence base is clear as is the position taken by the WHO , the NHS and many other equialvent or coordinating bodies along with the Royal colleges and their equivalents , the statute and caselaw of the united Kingdom and many other countires also supports the position

meanwhile the transphobic and homophobic positions are supported by cranks
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
sadly for your theory


my Primary Qualifying Degree says otherwise ...

the evidence base is clear as is the position taken by the WHO , the NHS and many other equialvent or coordinating bodies along with the Royal colleges and their equivalents , the statute and caselaw of the united Kingdom and many other countires also supports the position

meanwhile the transphobic and homophobic positions are supported by cranks
Oo, you have a degree. You win, then.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
sadly for your theory
”Having someone close killed in a traffic accident is a personal tragedy. It does not make you an instant expert on road safety.”

Some people are perhaps sitting a little too close these things.
my Primary Qualifying Degree says otherwise ...

the evidence base is clear as is the position taken by the WHO , the NHS and many other equialvent or coordinating bodies along with the Royal colleges and their equivalents , the statute and caselaw of the united Kingdom and many other countires also supports the position

meanwhile the transphobic and homophobic positions are supported by cranks
You heard it here first folks.

Despite literally no other field of medicine or expertise using this principle, because fairly obviously it would negate the purpose of expertise, and despite the principle of impartiality being a fundamental principle of law that explicitly disallows involved individuals (for example victims) to serve as judge or jury, despite all of this, apparently @enpointe's degree, several major medical institutions (who, of course, employ doctors primarily to sign off on what patients diagnose themselves with), and UK law all say otherwise.

You couldn't make it up. Oh, wait. You can!

@enpointe You're keen to claim expertise from your degree and to provide links to resources you agree with. Presumably you have textbooks or online texts from your degree. So please link or post a photo of the pages that support your claim above.

I remain fascinated by whatever process is going on inside your head. Clearly you aren't here to persuade anyone. Your unwillingness to engage with what others are actually saying, and steady progression of insults directed at every poster who dares even slightly disagree with you, not to mention that most posters have now explicitly said you are actively dissuading them of your points by your tone of argument, all demonstrate that. So, unless you are blind or a mischief bot, you can't be here to change minds. You don't seem too interested in hearing the other point of view, either, so I'm going to guess you aren't here out of curiosity or to educate yourself.

Assuming you are a real person, I won't try to pop psychology why else you might be here, but I would be genuinely interested to hear your reasons for why it's worth taking time out of your day to contribute to this thread?
 
@Sarastro, I have had similar (though less vehement) discussions with my sister, who has got very involved with the trans rights argument. I've three separate thoughts below:

1. I have the impression that a lot of those espousing @enpointe's arguments discuss them online. Fair play to them, nothing wrong with that. However, a very strongly affirming (pun not intended) online community that paints all opposition as XRW and doesn't critically examine any of its positions does not prepare its members for debate outside the community. When you're used to being able to make a rhetorically strong argument and state (not cite) sources backing you and thus win, it takes a while to shift gears when that tactic fails. Further, I'd suppose that a good many members of these online communities are quite young and more sensitive to personal attacks than most ARRSE members.

2. This is a cause of enormous emotional importance to its supporters. That it isn't to others is confusing and distressing and (anecdotally) inclines them to very strongly put arguments. Your previous posts 316 and 93 refer.

3. Coming vaguely back to topic, the latest disagreement my sister and I had concerned pronouns. Specifically, that my position ("I genuinely don't care what pronouns you use") was unacceptable: after some discussion, this was because it could cause confusion and stress to others who didn't know which pronouns to use for me (and apparently a bald statement of "I have no preferred pronouns" was not helpful). Tying into my theme, this does seem quite a youthful solution to the problem of "dealing with people I don't know at all is hard"; it may also link to "speech codes are fine because everyone I know is a reasonably good actor/thinks along comparable lines to me, and everybody I know generalises to everybody" (a fallacy we see every election).

Aside, reading back through this topic for supporting arguments, I suggest we (as in everyone) now ignore @enpointe making conflicting and angry noises until he, she or pronouns to fit comes up with links to concrete evidence. It will stop us circling the same buoy.
 
Last edited:

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
@Sarastro, I have had similar (though less vehement) discussions with my sister, who has got very involved with the trans rights argument. I've three separate thoughts below:

1. I have the impression that a lot of those espousing @enpointe's arguments discuss them online. Fair play to them, nothing wrong with that. However, a very strongly affirming (pun not intended) online community that paints all opposition as XRW and doesn't critically examine any of its positions does not prepare its members for debate outside the community. When you're used to being able to make a rhetorically strong argument and state (not cite) sources backing you and thus win, it takes a while to shift gears when that tactic fails. Further, I'd suppose that a good many members of these online communities are quite young and more sensitive to personal attacks than most ARRSE members.

2. This is a cause of enormous emotional importance to its supporters. That it isn't to others is confusing and distressing and (anecdotally) inclines them to very strongly put arguments. Your previous posts 316 and 93 refer.

3. Coming vaguely back to topic, the latest disagreement my sister and I had concerned pronouns. Specifically, that my position ("I genuinely don't care what pronouns you use") was unacceptable: after some discussion, this was because it could cause confusion and stress to others who didn't know which pronouns to use for me (and apparently a bald statement of "I have no preferred pronouns" was not helpful). Tying into my theme, this does seem quite a youthful solution to the problem of "dealing with people I don't know at all is hard"; it may also link to "speech codes are fine because everyone I know is a reasonably good actor/thinks along comparable lines to me, and everybody I know generalises to everybody" (a fallacy we see every election).

Aside, reading back through this topic for supporting arguments, I suggest we (as in everyone) now ignore @enpointe making conflicting and angry noises until he, she or pronouns to fit comes up with links to concrete evidence. It will stop us circling the same buoy.
Familiar with much of this and agree that your first point is quite likely correct in many cases.

On your third point, an argument to consider about pronouns (and why I won't do it) is the ground you are ceding by doing so. Using the plural "they" or any of the new formulations is, as far as I can see, a fairly harmless evolution of language that is effectively zero cost. There is a chance of confusion between multiple and single people, but in a lot of languages already have that ambiguity, and at least in English it tends to be fairly clear which you mean because it's possible to combine singular and plural versions in the same sentence. Adding new words ("xe" and so on), of course, is just addition, so doesn't change or cost anything to those that exist. So these seem, to me, a reasonable ask, and I'll do it: it's not a zero sum demand.

Using "her" instead of "him", on the other hand, is a zero sum demand, and agreeing to it cedes a lot of important ground. It is implicitly agreeing with the statement that one can change sex. If you don't think this is true, you shouldn't be required to say so, regardless of what others feel about it. It also raises a lot of definitional problems about how we separate sex and gender, things that we regularly do and which are important to a range of functions, data and so on. It is not a zero cost change, it is a high cost change, and one that many women (primarily) argue disadvantages one group over another. These kind of changes cannot be just waved through in the way that has been suggested.

All of this comes before the highly tribal, ideological nature in which such demands are often delivered: as another principle, it's perfectly fair to refuse to acede to demands delivered in a tyrannical or bullying manner, because of the method of delivery rather than the demand. The issue is not the demand, it's socially marking certain behaviour as wrong: treating the method of delivery as unacceptable, a bit like requiring a child to ask nicely rather than just hitting you to get what they want. But even were all this to disappear overnight, there would still be good grounds not to agree with the "he/she" change.

Language isn't anyone's personal property, it is a common good. Any individual or group adding to language comes with few costs, happens all the time, and shouldn't be controversial. But any individual or group demanding a common good change for them, particularly when it exacts a cost on others, is out of line. Your sister (assuming it is they) is creating a Trolley Problem: you aren't just choosing to reduce hurt to her, you are choosing to increase hurt to others. That is not a simple choice.

Saying "he" or "she" isn't a matter of personal choice or politeness, it's about how we all define and understand common ground shared by all of us, and no one individual or social group gets to control that, regardless of how difficult it may be for them.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
@Sarastro, I have had similar (though less vehement) discussions with my sister, who has got very involved with the trans rights argument. I've three separate thoughts below:

1. I have the impression that a lot of those espousing @enpointe's arguments discuss them online. Fair play to them, nothing wrong with that. However, a very strongly affirming (pun not intended) online community that paints all opposition as XRW and doesn't critically examine any of its positions does not prepare its members for debate outside the community. When you're used to being able to make a rhetorically strong argument and state (not cite) sources backing you and thus win, it takes a while to shift gears when that tactic fails. Further, I'd suppose that a good many members of these online communities are quite young and more sensitive to personal attacks than most ARRSE members.

2. This is a cause of enormous emotional importance to its supporters. That it isn't to others is confusing and distressing and (anecdotally) inclines them to very strongly put arguments. Your previous posts 316 and 93 refer.

3. Coming vaguely back to topic, the latest disagreement my sister and I had concerned pronouns. Specifically, that my position ("I genuinely don't care what pronouns you use") was unacceptable: after some discussion, this was because it could cause confusion and stress to others who didn't know which pronouns to use for me (and apparently a bald statement of "I have no preferred pronouns" was not helpful). Tying into my theme, this does seem quite a youthful solution to the problem of "dealing with people I don't know at all is hard"; it may also link to "speech codes are fine because everyone I know is a reasonably good actor/thinks along comparable lines to me, and everybody I know generalises to everybody" (a fallacy we see every election).

Aside, reading back through this topic for supporting arguments, I suggest we (as in everyone) now ignore @enpointe making conflicting and angry noises until he, she or pronouns to fit comes up with links to concrete evidence. It will stop us circling the same buoy.
Re. your third point:

It's perfectly acceptable - that is, in an adult, rational world, to refer to someone by the apparent pronoun until otherwise informed.

In other words, if someone is outwardly male, there's nothing wrong with he/him. One is not doing any wrong by identifying a male as a male. How that person chooses to self-identify is another matter.

If on being told that that person identifies as something other, then it's perfectly possible to make an adjustment.

It's not right, reasonable or fair for that person, however, to object to someone's reasonable ignorance.

That's a case of someone trying to impose their (SWIDT?) belief system on you as an individual and society as a whole. It is in fact a case of the self-proclaimed bullied in fact being a bully.

It's not a crime, or even an insult. If that person can't come to the conversation/situation rationally and reasonably, it shouldn't be for everyone else around them to suffer - there is no other word for it - their shortcomings.

It's just another form of Kafka-trapping.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Language isn't anyone's personal property, it is a common good. Any individual or group adding to language comes with few costs, happens all the time, and shouldn't be controversial. But any individual or group demanding a common good change for them, particularly when it exacts a cost on others, is out of line. Your sister (assuming it is they) is creating a Trolley Problem: you aren't just choosing to reduce hurt to her, you are choosing to increase hurt to others. That is not a simple choice.
Absolutely.
 
Language isn't anyone's personal property, it is a common good. Any individual or group adding to language comes with few costs, happens all the time, and shouldn't be controversial. But any individual or group demanding a common good change for them, particularly when it exacts a cost on others, is out of line. Your sister (assuming it is they) is creating a Trolley Problem: you aren't just choosing to reduce hurt to her, you are choosing to increase hurt to others. That is not a simple choice.
Let's turn that argument around, and suggest that instead of "people who don't believe that you can change gender" we were having this debate a few decades ago with a eugenicist, or a racist.

They would have a genuine belief that science backed their argument that "those people" were untermensch, different, not worthy of concern. That intermarriage was unacceptable, and should be banned. Asking them not to call someone a "Kike" or a "Yid", or perhaps asking Guy Gibson to change his dog's name, would be exacting a cost on them - why should they treat "those people" as equals? Next, you'll be allowing them to live next door!

By your reason, demanding a common good change for Blacks, Irish, Gays, or Jews would "exact a cost" from those brought up to believe that they were lesser beings. Would asking Stephen Yaxley-Lennon not to use derogatory terms for Muslims increase hurt to him? After all, he presumably believes all the inflammatory sh!te he puts out, so you appear to be suggesting that it will cost him to be polite?

I'd be interested in what you thought of Derek Mills-Roberts' response to the free speech of Erhardt Milch

Saying "he" or "she" isn't a matter of personal choice or politeness, it's about how we all define and understand common ground shared by all of us, and no one individual or social group gets to control that, regardless of how difficult it may be for them.
Control, perhaps not. Request politely, yes.

Of course you can insist on calling someone by the wrong pronouns - but a blind insistence on doing so, even to the nicest, meekest, and politest trans person they met, would just prove that the person doing it was a c*nt.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Let's turn that argument around, and suggest that instead of "people who don't believe that you can change gender" we were having this debate a few decades ago with a eugenicist, or a racist.

They would have a genuine belief that science backed their argument that "those people" were untermensch, different, not worthy of concern. That intermarriage was unacceptable, and should be banned. Asking them not to call someone a "Kike" or a "Yid", or perhaps asking Guy Gibson to change his dog's name, would be exacting a cost on them - why should they treat "those people" as equals? Next, you'll be allowing them to live next door!

By your reason, demanding a common good change for Blacks, Irish, Gays, or Jews would "exact a cost" from those brought up to believe that they were lesser beings. Would asking Stephen Yaxley-Lennon not to use derogatory terms for Muslims increase hurt to him? After all, he presumably believes all the inflammatory sh!te he puts out, so you appear to be suggesting that it will cost him to be polite?

I'd be interested in what you thought of Derek Mills-Roberts' response to the free speech of Erhardt Milch


Control, perhaps not. Request politely, yes.

Of course you can insist on calling someone by the wrong pronouns - but a blind insistence on doing so, even to the nicest, meekest, and politest trans person they met, would just prove that the person doing it was a c*nt.
The rather glaring difference with your analogy, which I think you will feel slightly silly about when I've pointed it out, is that no Jews called themselves Yids; Guy Gibson wasn't pretending to be black; and Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is not, by my best estimate, going to start calling himself Muslim.

You are equating words people use to refer to other groups with words groups use to refer to themselves, which is definitely an SAT Literacy fail.

The present complaint is that one group (trans activists) is assuming the language and identity of another group (women), who aren't universally happy about it. There have been some people in recent politics who've made various arguments about this. What were they called now? Appropration? Colonisation? Erasure?

You are somehow failing to acknowledge that demands from trans activists that men be allowed to assume the identity of women, and all the words, rights and status that identity implies, and at this point clearly against the wishes of a substantial proportion of women, is doing exactly what trans activists claim is happening to them. That kind of hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed for long.

If Stephen Yaxley-Lennon said he was a Muslim because he'd redefined the meaning of Muslim; that all previous Muslims needed to just accept it; and anyone who disputed his claim to be a Muslim was Islamaphobic (as I say this I'm now almost certain he's tried this rhetorical trick, because it's so obvious) then you might have a point. As it is, you don't.

PS This argument technically works for transwomen/men too, but it's increasingly clear that crux of the most bitter debates are between male trans activists and women, partly because however you feel about patriarchy and informal rights, "men" as a group don't have many formally protected rights or characteristics recognised in law.

Finally, even if we were to disregard all of the above and take your argument as read, then yes, the fundamental state would be that by favouring one group you are doing harm to another group, which is exactly why we don't allow individual or group claims of harm to regulate what others say, because it would quickly escalate to preventing anyone from saying anything. The answer is, instead: you don't get to demand what other people must say. You cannot both claim that principle yourself and simultaneously deny it in others.
 
Last edited:
The rather glaring difference with your analogy, which I think you will feel slightly silly about when I've pointed it out, is that no Jews called themselves Yids;
Tottenhams firm does.
 
You are somehow failing to acknowledge that demands from trans activists that men be allowed to assume the identity of women, and all the words, rights and status that identity implies, and at this point clearly against the wishes of a substantial proportion of women, is doing exactly what trans activists claim is happening to them. That kind of hypocrisy doesn't go unnoticed for long.
Define "clearly against the wishes of a substantial proportion of women" - a silent majority? Or a very vocal minority, while the majority go "yeah, whatever, it doesn't affect me"?

This does seem to be heading in the direction of DARVO - deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. Who are the truly threatened minority - women, or trans women? Why the insistence that women are the victim of those offending trans activists?

Tell you what, let's leave trans women out of it. How about trans men? Should they be allowed to assume the identity of men, and all the words, rights, and status that identity implies? Is it clearly against the wishes of a substantial proportion of men? Do you feel threatened by trans men sharing your toilet block?

...which is exactly why we don't allow individual or group claims of harm to regulate what others say because it would quickly escalate to preventing anyone from saying anything.
Yes we do, because we found out that the bigoted fuckwits of the world are more than happy to use demeaning language and insulting terms - and then, when called on it, claim "it was just banter" or "how dare you infringe my free speech".

And strangely, it hasn't escalated to the point where no-one is prevented from saying "person X is a twat because they did Y". They're just shamed for saying "person X is a <racial epithet>", because racial epithets are an indicator of racism, and as a society we have decided that racism is unacceptable.

The Army is demonstrably not quite at the point of stopping "person X is a <sexist epithet>", but it seems by your argument, all the words, rights, and status that identity implies only matter if you were born a woman.

The answer is, instead: you don't get to demand what other people must say. You cannot both claim that principle yourself and simultaneously deny it in others.

So you'll of course campaign that every Private Soldier in the Army gets to call the RSM "mate", and address the CO with "Hey, Steve*, how's it hanging"? How dare the CO demand that I refer to them as Sir!* It's a breach of my belief that all men* are equal!

Of course you have a right to free speech. But:
  • if you're a c*nt about it, people will quite rightly judge you
  • if you're a racist c*nt about it, the judge will quite rightly judge you
  • it doesn't mean you have a right to a platform (on social media, radio, TV or newspaper), or a right to demand that others listen to you
*Other first names, honorifics, and genders available
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
The thing with trans men is that they don't take anything from men by being in their spaces or places. No trans man is going to give male athletes any trouble.

I'm not sure of the ratio of trans men to transwomen out there but I'm pretty sure the number of transwomen is by far the biggest. Although I read a stat that 95% of transwomen are not going through reassignment surgery. Which in old money would make them transvestites.

Making transvestites a subset of women rather than a subset of women makes absolutely no sense at all. Can you imagine the outrage if transwomen / transvestites were given an automatic time advantage in any sports competition so that they started smashing all records?

I think the whole "give transwomen access to women's spaces or they'll kill themselves" had also be debunked as nonsense. Hopefully the "believe transwomen are women or you're fah-right" will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Define "clearly against the wishes of a substantial proportion of women" - a silent majority? Or a very vocal minority, while the majority go "yeah, whatever, it doesn't affect me"?
It doesn't matter. The same observation applies to both sides, as I've said previously (I don't think "trans activists" are representative of "all trans people"). We are both debating the most engaged and versions of each side. The problem isn't who is making the claims, the problem is the claim themselves are not capable of co-existing. Regardless of whether we should treat those making them as representative, given the extraordinary airtime the claims are getting, it is fair to examine them on their merits.

This does seem to be heading in the direction of DARVO - deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. Who are the truly threatened minority - women, or trans women? Why the insistence that women are the victim of those offending trans activists?
That's a nice acronym to undermine "hypocrisy" as a valid argument point, which isn't going to work. People are socially very attuned to those making moral claims behaving hypocritically, because its a great indicator that the moral claims or those making them are suspect.

Women aren't a minority, for starters, whatever the legal definitions say. But, yes, I genuinely think it is more likely that women are at threat from trans women (men) than the reverse. Off the top of your head, how many trans people have been murdered in the UK in the past 5 years? Fix a number. Here's the actual number:

Two. From TMM Absolute numbers - TvT which is cited by Stonewall. Be honest with yourself about how accurate your estimate was, and why that might be.

So I think that because the data doesn't support the hyperbole of activists, except for a very few countries around the world (and strongly suggest other influencing factors). Meanwhile, attacks by men on women are well documented.

Besides, the argument has never been that it is primarily genuine trans women who are a threat to women. The argument is that malicious individuals will exploit the rules demanded by trans activists in order to threaten women. There is another thread on here somewhere where all the examples of "men being called women" by the media have been linked (i.e. JK Rowling's "the penised individual who raped you is a woman"). Unsurprisingly, the number over the past year has risen substantially.

Also, there's just a de facto observation of the tone and method of debate. I've not seen - please point me to them if you know otherwise - instances of feminists making rape or murder threats against transwomen, trying to have them fired, etc etc, whereas there are a lot of examples in the opposite direction, which you can start by looking at JK Rowling's Twitter feed. Experience leads me to pay close attention to the methods used in any disagreement, because it's taught me that regardless of stated ideals, malicious methods reveal malicious people. Frankly I'm desperately unimpressed by the moral claims and calls to "kindness" and "tolerance" by those occupying the same side as what seems to be to be blatent and vicious misogyny, and unfortunately this includes you. My most optimistic read of that (as with anyone) is that you are simply ignorant of what is going on, but as this gets more attention, the road on that read is rapidly running out.

Tell you what, let's leave trans women out of it. How about trans men? Should they be allowed to assume the identity of men, and all the words, rights, and status that identity implies? Is it clearly against the wishes of a substantial proportion of men? Do you feel threatened by trans men sharing your toilet block?
On the logic of the argument, there is no difference, so no. I have no idea and have seen no data on what a men as a group think, and I've explicitly argued that decisions shouldn't be made according to whatever one individual "feels". Unlike women-only spaces, men's toilets aren't actually a legally protected space.

Yes we do, because we found out that the bigoted fuckwits of the world are more than happy to use demeaning language and insulting terms - and then, when called on it, claim "it was just banter" or "how dare you infringe my free speech".

And strangely, it hasn't escalated to the point where no-one is prevented from saying "person X is a twat because they did Y". They're just shamed for saying "person X is a <racial epithet>", because racial epithets are an indicator of racism, and as a society we have decided that racism is unacceptable.

The Army is demonstrably not quite at the point of stopping "person X is a <sexist epithet>", but it seems by your argument, all the words, rights, and status that identity implies only matter if you were born a woman.
I feel a bit like we're living in a different world. Yes, people are exactly being prevented from "person X is a twat because they did Y", precisely using accusations of transphobia, Islamophobia, etc. As I addressed in the first few pages, the fact that there is a Fellow Traveller problem (that some people accused of transphobia are transphobic) does not validate all claims of transphobia or similar.

By the way, since you're looking for ammo, I've also previously written that I oppose hate speech laws, and I do so for exactly this reason: that they create precedents that creep, and that they don't solve the problems they claim. The logic of free speech, as I've said many times now, is a balance of rights and responsibilities, and you don't redress the balance by putting your hand on the scales.

So you'll of course campaign that every Private Soldier in the Army gets to call the RSM "mate", and address the CO with "Hey, Steve*, how's it hanging"? How dare the CO demand that I refer to them as Sir!* It's a breach of my belief that all men* are equal!
No, because again you are confusing internal individual/group demands with external ones.

The Army (bad example because it is a public organisation, but let's assume it isn't) is a group that has every right to define their own internal norms. Those wishing to join the group and share whatever the group provides can adhere to the norms or not, but if they don't they probably won't have a happy and successful time. This is not the same as someone external to the group insisting that the group change how it behaves and defines itself, in the interests of that external individual.

Again, you are basically trying to turn around my (consistent) point to describe exactly what you are asking for. I am the one arguing the (in my opinion "tolerant" position): groups or individuals have the right to internally define themselves and their beliefs, so long as those don't impinge on others and their beliefs. You are the one saying that one group's definitions and beliefs should be asserted over the objections of another group.

This is important for precisely the logic above. If it is successful, it not only undermines women's rights, but the logic of tolerance and self-determination for any group anywhere.

Of course you have a right to free speech. But:
  • if you're a c*nt about it, people will quite rightly judge you
  • if you're a racist c*nt about it, the judge will quite rightly judge you
  • it doesn't mean you have a right to a platform (on social media, radio, TV or newspaper), or a right to demand that others listen to you
Of course you can insist on calling someone by the wrong pronouns - but a blind insistence on doing so, even to the nicest, meekest, and politest trans person they met, would just prove that the person doing it was a c*nt.
So I want to use these to summarise what is, frankly, a proof that what you are asking for is such an intolerant and moral supremacist (i.e. "only my moral judgement is correct") position.

In this post here I explained both my logical and moral position why the demand to use certain words has follow-on effects that create a moral choice. I said that it's not clear to me morally, because it's a Trolley Problem, why one demand should be prioritised over another. Those words above are your response:
  1. A refusal to acede to someone else's demands about what words I use is a "blind insistence". But it's not. It's a logical position that I've explained clearly above. Do you accept this or not? Explicit answers please.
  2. This refusal would constitute me being a c*nt (or several potential types of c*nt).
  3. Assuming you aren't reclaiming the term for Wiccans everywhere, that's a bad thing. My refusal is bad: it is morally wrong. Is this accurate? Explicit answers again.
Can you see what you, or specifically, the inherent logic of this argument, are doing? My rational argument against yours is not only something you disagree with, it doesn't exist ("blind insistence"). My moral qualms, however nicely and thoroughly explained, are invalid. You are asserting, as this argument inherently does, that your moral opinion takes precedence over mine.

So, in order to follow your demand, I have to:
  1. Sublimate my rational judgement to yours. Which is difficult when you are yet to make a rational argument (I've asked several times) for why what you are asking for: "kindness" is not a rational argument, it is a social/emotional one.
  2. I have to lie. I have stated I don't believe what you are claiming (i.e. he can become she), but you say I should still say "she" when asked.
  3. Sublimate my moral judgement to yours. Aside from being by definition intolerant of differing moral opinions, this is the core attribute of moral cowardice, or at least vacancy.
That is a remarkably expansive and inherently intolerant set of demands in the name of "politeness".
 
Last edited:

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The thing with trans men is that they don't take anything from men by being in their spaces or places. No trans man is going to give male athletes any trouble.

I'm not sure of the ratio of trans men to transwomen out there but I'm pretty sure the number of transwomen is by far the biggest. Although I read a stat that 95% of transwomen are not going through reassignment surgery. Which in old money would make them transvestites.

Making transvestites a subset of women rather than a subset of women makes absolutely no sense at all. Can you imagine the outrage if transwomen / transvestites were given an automatic time advantage in any sports competition so that they started smashing all records?

I think the whole "give transwomen access to women's spaces or they'll kill themselves" had also be debunked as nonsense. Hopefully the "believe transwomen are women or you're fah-right" will be treated with the contempt it deserves.
Solve it by removing gender from sports. Just don't be surprised when the individuals with penises win the majority of the medals... and don't surprised when the mediocrities who started to win medals by self-declaring as women suddenly go back to being mediocrities.

Call the bluff on some of this nonsense, and the assault on women that it represents.
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
Solve it by removing gender from sports. Just don't be surprised when the individuals with penises win the majority of the medals... and don't surprised when the mediocrities who started to win medals by self-declaring as women suddenly go back to being mediocrities.

Call the bluff on some of this nonsense, and the assault on women that it represents.
Or we could just return to where we were before we started allowing men into female sports. It's a grotesque decision which flies in the face of the fairness of sportsmanship.
 
Top