MoD language guide

enpointe

Old-Salt
@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.
you have been provided links to concrete evidence repeatedly , you have chosen to ignore them becasue they don't come from your choice of propagnadists and instead come from the courts, long established and well regarded Charities and learned bodies.

you also appear to forget that the onus is placed on those who wish to change the law , not on those who contend to maintain and enforce the current law, primarily becasue we have all ready litigated this point - the result of which was the secondary legislation to the SDA in the mid 1990s which was rolled into and slightly expanded by EA2010 ( the expansion being that 'medical supervision ' - which was never defined in the 1990s regulations was removed asa phrase from the defintion of the protected characteristic - which also brought it in line with all the other Protected Characteristics in the EA ) and the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.

the position adopted by those opposing and demandnng the roll back of rights is inherently fascist , these rights which in practice have been established for many years and in the case of certain specific issues were litigated 25 -30 years ago correcting previous incorrect judgement ( i.e the GRA to reverse the incorrect law of Corbett vs Corbett and the Forbes-semple cases )

like so many people you appear to have swallowed the the line that suddenly in 2015/ 16, as the XRW groups opposed to marriage equality realised that they had lost that battle, trans people got invented by the lGBTQ+ 'industry' ...

all you continue to do is demonstrate your own ignorance and lack of very very basic research and base knowledge on the topic
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
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.

evidence base please

bearing in mind the requirements for a transgender woman or a cisgender woman that old white men don't like the look of to compete in female sporting events is a process of several years in duration and requires repeated and expensive testing and medical examinations

asfor accusatins of men transitioning becasue they could not compete as men ...

the data does not support your assertions <


i'd also invite you to take the 'Alternative Turing test' , the problem is the risk of you un-aliving yourself due to dysphoria - as also seen with dr Powers and the face cream
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
Ooo, you're in trouble now... :-D
I did hear a booming "words are literal violence" in my mind as I typed it out & even considered writing "sportsmxnship" or even "sportpersonship" but I then considered my position on the wrong side of history & decided to not only erase everyone who isn't male.
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
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.

your utter ignorance here is marked

do you know who Chris Mosier is ?

what about Patricio Manuel ?


you also do not appear to understand the difference between F64.0 transsexual / HA60 Gender incongruence and Paraphilic fetishism

it;s also very clear you have no understanding or wish to understand the medicla requirments imposed an y wmen that the 57 old farts impose without a sound scientific basis .
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
I'd like to see the study which says a man can put on a frock, plaster himself with make up to resemble a grotesque caricature of a woman, give himself a strippers name and then be told that he has changed actual sex.

The bottom line here is that sex is a protected characteristic by law. Gender identity is not but some absolute dangers are trying to make it so that it is.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I did hear a booming "words are literal violence" in my mind as I typed it out & even considered writing "sportsmxnship" or even "sportpersonship" but I then considered my position on the wrong side of history & decided to not only erase everyone who isn't male.
As opposed to 'actual', quite.

The issue is the total debasement of language so as to be incomprehensible.

The argument a couple of years ago was to stop calling a collective group of people 'guys'. Of course, we had to call them 'gals' instead.

It achieves nothing - not least because the vast majority, including the vast majority of women, aren't grinding their teeth over this 24 hours a day.

No doubt my evidence base* is lacking.



*The general population.
 
Last edited:

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
evidence base please

bearing in mind the requirements for a transgender woman or a cisgender woman that old white men don't like the look of to compete in female sporting events is a process of several years in duration and requires repeated and expensive testing and medical examinations

asfor accusatins of men transitioning becasue they could not compete as men ...

the data does not support your assertions <


i'd also invite you to take the 'Alternative Turing test' , the problem is the risk of you un-aliving yourself due to dysphoria - as also seen with dr Powers and the face cream
Again, for the interest of others, my @enpointe debunking service:
  • Different sports (and the same sports at different levels) are treating the issue differently, which is fair enough because it affects different sports to different degrees.
  • However, schools and colleges, which given athletics is a young persons game are crucial training and feeding grounds to professional sports, are resoundingly on the side of allowing trans people to compete in their stated sex category without restraints - for example, only 10 US states have imposed limitations on this (i.e. ruling single-sex sports are categorised by sex and not gender identity), and there are reams of examples from US universities and colleges of trans athletes switching sex category and dominating the sport.
  • The default position for schools in the UK is vague: see here and here. It effectively leaves the decision up to the school (or for state schools, likely the LEA) and while it provides for discrimination on the basis of sex, it similarly confuses "sex" and "gender" in the wording in ways which have created confusion and challenge elsewhere.
  • While some characteristics or advantages do decline with transition (as @BarcelonaAnalPark noted this is all about Male to Female transition, because that's where the physical advantages exist), others either don't decline at all, or decline much more slowly: height, weight, strength, muscle mass.
A good and balanced interview on these issues at the professional level is here from Joanna Harper, a trans athlete and PhD who has admirably straddled the political divide by using "logic and reason and rational thinking". Amazing, these new technologies.

I look forward to @enpointe noting that Harper is not really trans / out of date / unqualified to comment and the usual.
 

BarcelonaAnalPark

LE
Book Reviewer
I doubt very much that enpointe is a real person. But these divisive & destructive topics to attract new profiles who just happen to be well-resourced with narratives & links. They're also quick to resort to tried & tested lines to shut down debate, such as accusations of being fah-right.

Less enpointe, more drapeau-rouge.
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
I doubt very much that enpointe is a real person. But these divisive & destructive topics to attract new profiles who just happen to be well-resourced with narratives & links. They're also quick to resort to tried & tested lines to shut down debate, such as accusations of being fah-right.

Less enpointe, more drapeau-rouge.
Certainly crossed my mind, and ARRSE is an obvious target for that kind of mischief-information, but still Occam's Razor applies and there are far fewer Russian troll farm employees than standard issue left-wing ideological zealots. Real or not, enpointe is not unrepresentative of those who are open about their puritanism, so we might as well treat him as such.

(Obviously здравия желаю to @enpointe if not, I'd hate to discriminate against our erstwhile adversaries and fellow digital wage slaves)

 
A good and balanced interview on these issues at the professional level is here from Joanna Harper, a trans athlete and PhD who has admirably straddled the political divide by using "logic and reason and rational thinking". Amazing, these new technologies.
Agreed - it's a good artice (reassuring to see a nuanced explanation in print). I recommend it to anyone who wants to weigh in on the "trans women in sport" debate - read it all the way through :)
 

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Agreed - it's a good artice (reassuring to see a nuanced explanation in print). I recommend it to anyone who wants to weigh in on the "trans women in sport" debate - read it all the way through :)
Of course, note that since the most contested examples at present are about college age athletes onwards, and sports which heavily favour certain characteristics (e.g. weightlifting), the points that Harper makes pretty much validate those concerns.

Meanwhile, if you search for "trans athletes US schools" the first few pages of Google results almost entirely paint it as a case of evil conservatives discriminating against stunning and brave kids. When Fox News (not listed) feel confident enough to present numerous segments just discussing the facts with no leading questions or implied bias, you might no longer be in the centre ground.

PS The above is also, off-topic, important because it demonstrates the absolutely monumental strategic error the US left (and anyone who follows them) have made by making this issue a hill to die on, which almost by default has driven huge swathes of voters - including miraculously literally 50% of the population - who they really need to hold onto into, at best, the unoccupied ideological middle ground, and in many cases, into voting Republican. Slowly some start to realise this, or at least speak out about it: see the cautious articles following the "jewish goblin" absurdity suggesting that perhaps demonising JK Rowling isn't the best of modern activism. I suspect it will take a lot longer for those voters to forget quite how uniform and vicious the condemnation was from the left for holding common sense positions. Combine this with the evolving consequences of "defund the police" on crime in cities like San Francisco and Portland, you have a recipe for renewed Republican dominance for the best part of a decade: which n the era of Donald Trump, is a real ******* problem!
 
Last edited:
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.
Much like your point about the numbers of trans women murdered in the UK, have you got a number for that? Because the frequently-made counterpoint is that malicious individuals don't tend to dress as women so that they can go into the womens' toilet and harrass/assault - they just go into the toilet anyway.

If the argument is actually about stopping malicious individuals, is the best solution really to ban genuine trans women from womens' toilets? It does rather seem like the real problem is "men who assault women", and yet it's the trans women being demonised.

Your linked article by Joanna Harper makes this point towards the end: "A number of states that have introduced bills to ban trans women in sports have said they're trying to save women’s sports. But in addition to these bans, they're also introducing legislation to try to limit the lives of trans people in other ways. They're showing their true colors."

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.

Your points tend to focus on bad actors, and those who game/abuse systems; you've been a victim of that, so it's understandable.

My points tend to focus on the impact to the honest actors, those (whether naively or not) trying to live their life with respect and tolerance. Naive, idealistic, soppy - perhaps. But my filter is typically "would I talk this way to a trans woman friend, who I know to be a gentle and decent person?". I'm curious as to how a perspective that assumes that we should mostly act as if other people deserve respect, is a position driven by "blatant and vicious misogyny". Misogynist isn't a term that anyone has previously levelled at me...

You're arguing that I must be one of two things. Ask yourself the same question that I ask myself, on a regular basis: "What if I'm wrong?"

Perhaps I'm neither ignorant, nor a misogynist, I just have a different opinion from you. If that's the case, how is your conclusion that I must be a "vicious misogynist" any different from the ideologues and over-activists who screech "Fascist!" at anyone who disagrees with them? I mean, there are actual Fascist scum out there, why risk demeaning the term?

I've explicitly argued that decisions shouldn't be made according to whatever one individual "feels".
Except (as you know) that's a bit of a stretch from what is required of a transitioning individual. Why belittle them?

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.
A bit like a democratic society, then - a nation which has every right to define their own internal norms. Those wishing to become full citizens of that nation and share whatever the nation 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 nation insisting that the nation change how it behaves and defines itself, in the interests of that external individual.

That would unfortunately make the argument that we shouldn't tell Saudi men not to be beastly to women, because it's their own internal norm. That we shouldn't have told <Balkan Nation X> not to ethnically cleanse or murder <Balkan Religion Y>. That the imposition of direct rule on Northern Ireland shouldn't have happened, because flute bands, parades, and gerrymandering in the name of Protestant Supremacy was a historic norm. That desegregation and equal rights' acts were an external and unjustified action against the southern states of the USA.

A refusal to accede 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.
  1. This refusal would constitute me being a c*nt (or several potential types of c*nt).
  2. 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.
Take the example where you're sitting in a pub with a fully-transitioned trans woman friend; genuine and happy in their own self. Would you insist throughout every conversation on using "he" and "his" about them? Even if they didn't say anything, didn't make any "demands" about how you referred to them?

If you avoided pronouns, or used singular they, and generally demonstrated acceptance of your friend's (difficult) decision, then that would be the act of a decent human being. If, however, you prioritised your own principled righteousness / "avoided moral cowardice" at the cost of a friend's discomfort or unhappiness, then it would the act of a c*nt.

I rather suspect, however, that you would take the former option. When I used "blind insistence", I was positing a situation where someone might, as an individual, insist on using the birth pronouns of every single person they met, regardless of situation, relationship, politeness, kindness, or anything else.

We make these toleration decisions all the time; my late father-in-law grew up in WW2, read the Daily Mail every day, had an "interesting" perspective on all sorts of stuff, but wasn't actively bigoted (more "came from a different era"). We actually got along rather well, and I liked him; he didn't call me a f*cking commie, I didn't suggest he should cut eyeholes in his pillowcases, and while our respective wives occasionally got twitchy when discussion turned to politics, we respected each other enough not to deliberately offend. Even though each of us knew the other was wrong ;)

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.
Which of us throws terms like "vicious misogynist" around? That's not a rational accusation, it's a social/emotional one.
 
Last edited:

Sarastro

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Much like your point about the numbers of trans women murdered in the UK, have you got a number for that? Because the frequently-made counterpoint is that malicious individuals don't tend to dress as women so that they can go into the womens' toilet and harrass/assault - they just go into the toilet anyway.
I'm on a phone so it's hard to type accurately, but I'll give it a go.

Actually no I won't - the site regularly breaks when typing on a phone and I can't be arsed to wrestle with it. I'll reply in full when I can in a few days.

In the meantime, I again didn't see the logical argument I've asked for repeatedly for how your position works as a system for balancing rights in society, and a rational defence of how that is good for society. So far we have: it's fair / kind to treat people as they ask to be treated. I've pointed out numerous holes in that assertion in general and in this case, and so far you've offered nothing in reply.

You are asking the rest of us to agree to fundamental changes to how we define parts of shared society: an inability or unwillingness to state your case "why" isn't convincing.
 
In the meantime, I again didn't see the logical argument I've asked for repeatedly for how your position works as a system for balancing rights in society, and a rational defence of how that is good for society. So far we have: it's fair / kind to treat people as they ask to be treated. I've pointed out numerous holes in that assertion in general and in this case, and so far you've offered nothing in reply.
As a society, we work best when we cooperate. Being kind to one's fellow human beings seems like a sensible start point. By contrast, insisting that one's right to be correct (from your perspective) outweighs any suggestion that one should be polite and considerate to others, seems to be less likely to result in a cooperative society.

There may be holes in my "situational politeness", but it seems more pragmatic than demanding absolute rational principles that must be applied across all possible behaviour. Remember the old adage: "Maxims are for the guidance of wise men, and the blind obedience of fools".

I'm an atheist. But I don't refuse to attend church services (Weddings, Funerals, Remembrance), I don't call out the Padre, I'm not some kind of twat who wanders around shouting "It's all just superstition!". I respect the good people within the Church, because they're good people and I like them; and it costs me nothing, even though I know that there is no God. When the Padre asked me to do the reading at Remembrance, I did the best damn reading I could offer although "Thanks be to God" didn't get said at the end. I may be right, but I'll not be a dick about it.

Don't get me wrong; I despise the grifters and pretend-Religious who insist that their belief is a zero-sum game in which anyone who fails to meet their approval (or skin tone, or $DEITY) is doomed to burn in the fires of everlasting damnation. And if religious types try to justify hatred, cruelty, or violence on the basis of their particular big book of fairy stories, then they can Fvck Right Off, and I'll say it loudly.

You are asking the rest of us to agree to fundamental changes to how we define parts of shared society: an inability or unwillingness to state your case "why" isn't convincing.
No. I just haven't provided a line of reasoning that you would choose to follow (and as a result insist that I "haven't provided a rational case"). And I'd suggest that "treating others with kindness and respect" doesn't require any fundamental changes to our shared society.

We see the world in a slightly different way. From my point of view, you're emphasising principles over people; I'm emphasising individuals over principles. I suspect that in the vast majority of situations, we would act the same way - out of concern, out of kindness, out of loyalty or duty; IMHO we're just arguing over the hypotheticals and edge cases.
 
Last edited:

Diogenes' limp

War Hero
The following is an extract from the pro-forma Staff Handbook currently provided as guidance to SMEs by the Chamber of Commerce in an English City.
________________________________________________________

4. Valuing Diversity and Dignity at Work

a. Valuing Diversity

i) Statement

--Company name -- is committed to valuing diversity and seeks to provide all staff with the opportunity for employment, career and personal development on the basis of ability, qualifications and suitability for the work as well as their potential to be developed into the job.

We believe that people from different backgrounds can bring fresh ideas, thinking and approaches which make the way work is undertaken more effective and efficient.

The Company will not tolerate direct or indirect discrimination against any person on the grounds of age, disability, gender / gender reassignment, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy / maternity, race religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation whether in the field of recruitment, terms and conditions of employment, career progression, training, transfer or dismissal.

It is also the responsibility of all staff in their daily actions, decisions and behaviour to endeavour to promote these concepts, to comply with all relevant legislation and to ensure that they do not discriminate against colleagues, customers, suppliers or any other person associated with the company

ii) Key Actions

In adopting these principles (The Employer)--------------------------------------------------:

1. Will not tolerate acts that breach this policy and all such breaches or alleged breaches will be taken seriously, .............

________________________________________

It is a contractual obligation to adhere to the employer’s policies. Failure to do so can have consequences up to loss of employment. So a condition of employment is that not only must an employee abide by this policy, but must promote the concept. Neutrality is failure to comply.

The wording leaves little room for doubt as the intent indicated by 'promote', if had been meant in the sense of 'live by' the sentence containing it would be redundant.

Suppose that an employee is, for religious reasons, against one or more of these factors, provided they do not actively discriminate or voice their beliefs in such a way as to suggest prejudice, then they have behaved reasonably, but to make the employee actively promote all such concepts against their own beliefs must in and of itself be indirect discrimination and oppressive, thus a form of bullying.

Which is, to my mind, where the PC/equality industry tie themselves up in their own contradictions. Always at least one step too far.

But how can it be that the combined knowledge and expertise supporting and encouraging SMEs can possibly promote this contradiction? Taken from idea to ideology backed by the force of law, unless it is deliberate.

edit to remove rogue comma
 

enpointe

Old-Salt
The following is an extract from the pro-forma Staff Handbook currently provided as guidance to SMEs by the Chamber of Commerce in an English City.
________________________________________________________

4. Valuing Diversity and Dignity at Work

a. Valuing Diversity

i) Statement

--Company name -- is committed to valuing diversity and seeks to provide all staff with the opportunity for employment, career and personal development on the basis of ability, qualifications and suitability for the work as well as their potential to be developed into the job.

We believe that people from different backgrounds can bring fresh ideas, thinking and approaches which make the way work is undertaken more effective and efficient.

The Company will not tolerate direct or indirect discrimination against any person on the grounds of age, disability, gender / gender reassignment, marriage, civil partnership, pregnancy / maternity, race religion or belief, sex or sexual orientation whether in the field of recruitment, terms and conditions of employment, career progression, training, transfer or dismissal.

It is also the responsibility of all staff in their daily actions, decisions and behaviour to endeavour to promote these concepts, to comply with all relevant legislation and to ensure that they do not discriminate against colleagues, customers, suppliers or any other person associated with the company

ii) Key Actions

In adopting these principles (The Employer)--------------------------------------------------:

1. Will not tolerate acts that breach this policy and all such breaches or alleged breaches will be taken seriously, .............

________________________________________

It is a contractual obligation to adhere to the employer’s policies. Failure to do so can have consequences up to loss of employment. So a condition of employment is that not only must an employee abide by this policy, but must promote the concept. Neutrality is failure to comply.

The wording leaves little room for doubt as the intent indicated by 'promote', if had been meant in the sense of 'live by' the sentence containing it would be redundant.

Suppose that an employee is, for religious reasons, against one or more of these factors, provided they do not actively discriminate or voice their beliefs in such a way as to suggest prejudice, then they have behaved reasonably, but to make the employee actively promote all such concepts against their own beliefs must in and of itself be indirect discrimination and oppressive, thus a form of bullying.

Which is, to my mind, where the PC/equality industry tie themselves up in their own contradictions. Always at least one step too far.

But how can it be that the combined knowledge and expertise supporting and encouraging SMEs can possibly promote this contradiction? Taken from idea to ideology backed by the force of law, unless it is deliberate.

edit to remove rogue comma
you are attempting to create a situation here by conspicuously avoiding acknowledge the extensive case law on protected belief vis Protected Characteristics

basically despite big money fro mthe USA the Bigoted Christian Legal Centre loses these cases again and again
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer
I used to watch a programme on Sunday mornings called ‘Trans World Sport’. Is this what all the fuss is about?
 

Bubbles_Barker

LE
Book Reviewer

Latest Threads

Top