6 ms·

You think you aren't, but you are when you say the categories of "male, female and 3rd sex" are appropriate for simplifying the "absurdities". You should show

You think you aren't, but you are when you say the categories of "male, female and 3rd sex" are appropriate for simplifying the "absurdities". You should show people who fit in your "absurd" minority sexual categories with more respect in future.

brigandish 7y ago
Whether or not they are absurdities is obviously a contention, and hence, whether or not they are being disrespected. It's not contentious that you should show people you're in discussion with respect, nor that you have not shown said respect.
- tomlock 7y ago
  So do you believe they're absurd?
  - brigandish 7y ago
    Do I believe what are absurd? I've already had enough equivocation for one thread, please be specific when you post. I looked at the first two lists of gender identities my search returned and there were plenty of absurd categories (like Maverique and Novigender). In addition, the idea that public policy and law should revolve around people choosing their identities on a day to day basis is, I believe, unworkable, if not absurd. The idea that people may be compelled by law to be forced to use language set by others is not absurd, it's horrifying. From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997 > It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech The true minority is the individual and this is the minority that is most at risk here.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly. He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom. > It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech For one thing this isn't anything like the first case where the courts have found that a company hasn't done something wrong for firing an employee for not saying what the company wants them to say. But also that judgment isn't saying anything of the sort. You're quoting an extremist Christian organisation who bring futile cases to court in order to make political points. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-questionable-ethics-of-the-christian-legal-centre/ https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu... The judgment is saying that when you're a doctor employed by a government department you'll have to obey the law and the government department's policies. Note that the judgment doesn't force this doctor to use any particular pronoun, it only says that the government department can fire him. And, in this particular context, everything about the meetings the doctor had with service users was "compelled" speech -- there's literally a template the doctor has to read from. His legal team didn't attempt a freedom of speech defence. They tried to use a discrimination against religious beliefs defence, and that failed because... > It was confirmed by the representatives at the start of the hearing that it was agreed that Dr Mackereth did not assert that he was treated less favourably than a person who, for reasons unrelated to Christianity or other belief refused to comply with the DWP’s gender reassignment or equal opportunities policy Here's the judgment: https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Judgment-Mackereth-DWP-Others-ET-191002.pdf https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-R...
      - brigandish 7y ago
        > You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly. > He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom. Knowing that what you say may be offensive is not the same as arguing for the disrespect of someone. The judgement also does not contain the word disrepect and it is not part of his defence that it is his intention to disrespect anyone. Much as I disagree with why he's doing it, he is being compelled. Again, to compel has a well worn definition, if you will be fired unless you do certain things you are being compelled, so I disagree with your description. I have nothing further to add.
        tomlock 7y ago
        So your argument is that being offensive to someone isn't the same as being disrespectful? Like, I am genuinely curious about how you're justifying this to yourself.
  - dang 7y ago
    Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago. You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago. You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

brigandish 7y ago

Whether or not they are absurdities is obviously a contention, and hence, whether or not they are being disrespected. It's not contentious that you should show people you're in discussion with respect, nor that you have not shown said respect.

tomlock 7y ago
So do you believe they're absurd?
- brigandish 7y ago
  Do I believe what are absurd? I've already had enough equivocation for one thread, please be specific when you post. I looked at the first two lists of gender identities my search returned and there were plenty of absurd categories (like Maverique and Novigender). In addition, the idea that public policy and law should revolve around people choosing their identities on a day to day basis is, I believe, unworkable, if not absurd. The idea that people may be compelled by law to be forced to use language set by others is not absurd, it's horrifying. From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997 > It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech The true minority is the individual and this is the minority that is most at risk here.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly. He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom. > It is deeply disturbing that this is the first time in the history of English law that a judge has ruled that free citizens must engage in compelled speech For one thing this isn't anything like the first case where the courts have found that a company hasn't done something wrong for firing an employee for not saying what the company wants them to say. But also that judgment isn't saying anything of the sort. You're quoting an extremist Christian organisation who bring futile cases to court in order to make political points. https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-questionable-ethics-of-the-christian-legal-centre/ https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu... The judgment is saying that when you're a doctor employed by a government department you'll have to obey the law and the government department's policies. Note that the judgment doesn't force this doctor to use any particular pronoun, it only says that the government department can fire him. And, in this particular context, everything about the meetings the doctor had with service users was "compelled" speech -- there's literally a template the doctor has to read from. His legal team didn't attempt a freedom of speech defence. They tried to use a discrimination against religious beliefs defence, and that failed because... > It was confirmed by the representatives at the start of the hearing that it was agreed that Dr Mackereth did not assert that he was treated less favourably than a person who, for reasons unrelated to Christianity or other belief refused to comply with the DWP’s gender reassignment or equal opportunities policy Here's the judgment: https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-Resource-Judgment-Mackereth-DWP-Others-ET-191002.pdf https://christianconcern.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/CC-R...
    - brigandish 7y ago
      > You've said a few times that "No one is arguing for disrespect of anyone", but the case you quote does argue that point explicitly. > He knew his stance would cause offence and even harm. His argument was that his employers should ignore that because of his convention rights to religious freedom. Knowing that what you say may be offensive is not the same as arguing for the disrespect of someone. The judgement also does not contain the word disrepect and it is not part of his defence that it is his intention to disrespect anyone. Much as I disagree with why he's doing it, he is being compelled. Again, to compel has a well worn definition, if you will be fired unless you do certain things you are being compelled, so I disagree with your description. I have nothing further to add.
      - tomlock 7y ago
        So your argument is that being offensive to someone isn't the same as being disrespectful? Like, I am genuinely curious about how you're justifying this to yourself.
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago. You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 7y ago
Please don't do tit-for-tat flamewars like this on HN. The further they get to the right of the page, the nastier and more repetitive they get, and curiosity has been lost long ago. You guys have been going at it in other subthreads too. That's not what this site is for. In the future, please take a step back and refrain. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html