Idiot stupidity

A man who underwent gender reassignment to become a woman has lost his High Court bid to have his identity as father removed from his children’s birth papers.

The transgender father began gender reassignment back in 2012 and is waiting for a final operation to become female.

She claimed it was discrimination and a breach of her human right for respect to private and family life not to take the description “father” off the children’s birth certificates.

Identified only as JK she challenged the refusal of the Registrar General to alter the certificates to describe her simply as “parent” or “father/parent”.

Sigh. Some people just have a bit too much time on their hands, eh? Seems fair enough that the kiddies, conceived naturally before the knackers were taken off, get described as the children of said father really.

76 comments on “Idiot stupidity

  1. “Seems fair enough that the kiddies, conceived naturally before the knackers were taken off, get described as the children of said father really.”

    Not what she was asking for.

    “she challenged the refusal of the Registrar General to alter the certificates to describe her simply as “parent” or “father/parent”.”

    Seems reasonable to me.

  2. Someone who is claiming victimhood status and getting lots of publicity for their cause whilst at the same time asking for a private life. Sorry mate, if you take a public course of action then your private life is not private anymore.

  3. While I am happy not to interfere with a consenting adult’s choice to engage in extreme genital mutilation, or masquerading as a member of the opposite sex, this does not alter their original biological design especially when the foresworn apparatus has been used for reproduction. I await a transgendered woman complaining about period cramps, endometriosis and the risks of pregnancy, until then it’s just make believe.

  4. @Matthew L

    He fathered the child. His spermatozoa fertilised the egg. The child has half his genes. Those genes were in his sperm which came from his testicles. In what sense is he not the father of the child?

    He may not want to be the father of the child now but it is an immutable fact that he fathered the child and was the father of the child at the time it was born (or at least conceived). Changing it retrospectively is asking everyone to lie, just to validate his choice and/or feelings.

    I’m sure there are plenty of people with criminal records who feel they were different people when they did what they did than they are now. That’s true in a sense if they’ve reformed, but they still did what they did and the record, rightly, stands.

  5. Oh, and as Paul said, I’ll be mightily pissed off if I’m paying for this dog and pony show.

  6. Well it isn’t “father” to the kids, is it? Do they call it daddy? So sperm donor or egg fertilizer seems reasonable.

  7. Sperm donors may be shit or anonymous or absent fathers. They are still fathers. They are just not dads.

  8. “Seems fair enough that the kiddies, conceived naturally before the knackers were taken off, get described as the children of said father really.”

    Not what she was asking for.

    “she challenged the refusal of the Registrar General to alter the certificates to describe her simply as “parent” or “father/parent”.”

    Seems reasonable to me.

    Except – ‘she’ filled the role of *father* in creating the kid.

    I’m all for supporting transgender and all that – I feel that its simply inevitable anyway, in a generation from now when body modification will be easy, sex will be mutable – but if you donated the sperm you’re the father, donate the egg and you’re the mother.

    Which is what the birth certificate is recording, not the *role* you take in raising the kid.

  9. What Paul and Dr Cromarty said – and of course it’s at our expense. Who funds the High Court?

    (And – without checking, admittedly – I’ll bet he’s on legal aid. Try getting legal aid to defend yourself against a serious criminal charge. Or getting the cash back after you sell your house to fund your defence.)

    In any sane world, this guy would be laughed at. If you want to have your genitals removed you’re mad, but OK, if that’s your thing. Taking the matter to court so as to get the birth certificate changed retrospectively… sorry but I am ROFLMAO.

  10. Hmmm, I can’t see any practical reason for explicitly identifying parents by gender, unless the state admits to discrimination. So it doesn’t seem like a ridiculous request.

    But conversely, it does all seem rather trivial. I can’t work out how a rarely used bookkeeping entry would make a substantial difference to JKs quality of life. Especially as there must be any number of other such entries scattered around, the article already mentions JKs own birth certificate.

  11. Dr C:cf “Luke, I am your father”

    More like :

    “Oh Annie I’m not your Daddy”

    Neils R: Scandi-bollocks. He did the deed and is the child’s Father. The moving penis may have moved on but that fact remains. And fuck trying to alter-reality to suit mad leftist bullshit.

  12. Why is it necessary to record on the birth certificate who the sperm came from and who the egg came from? What’s wrong with recording the parents as “parent”?

  13. ‘…and is waiting for a final operation to become female.’

    Got a long wait. No matter what marvels of medical science we have, he’s destined to never become female.

  14. Why is it necessary to record on the birth certificate who the sperm came from and who the egg came from? What’s wrong with recording the parents as “parent”?

    Knowing where you got your Sex-linked health problems?
    Avoiding marrying a half sibling?
    Avoiding lying as a society to placate lunatic leftist wish-fulfilment?

  15. @ecks,

    I’m not denying she’s the father. Frankly, my money is on her wanting to change the records out of the usual hypersensitive narcissism.

    But like Matthew L, I’m curious what the state gains by recording who spunked in whom to generate tax-cattle #82663892635.

  16. Niels R:”But like Matthew L, I’m curious what the state gains by recording who spunked in whom to generate tax-cattle #82663892635″

    If you are arguing for the abolition of all state records I am in 100% agreement with you–hopefully to be followed up by a plot in the cemetery for the state itself.

    That is not likely in the immediate future and my present point is about not allowing leftists to try and alter the objective truth–ie he is the Father, whatever he may do to himself– to be overlaid by lying leftist bollocks.

  17. Dr Cromarty

    Biologically your father is the male who fertilized your mother’s egg. Socially your father is the man who rases you to adulthood. I was using the later sense.

    cf “My father who art in heaven.”

    I still wonder what the kids call it. Mummy too?

  18. “donate the egg and you’re the mother.”

    Regarding Birth Certificates, is this correct, isn’t it be who donates the womb (the “birth mother”)?

  19. I’m quite surprised that no-one’s yet mentioned that the birth certificates he’s trying to change are not his. Forget about the specificity of birth certificates and gender for a moment. Why should he be allowed to change someone else’s records?

    > I’m curious what the state gains by recording who spunked in whom to generate tax-cattle #82663892635.

    Cynic though I am, not everything the state does is for the state’s gain. It is useful to children to know who their mother and father are. It’s obvious to most children, but some are adopted, abandoned, and so on, and have to go looking to find this stuff out. These days, genetic predisposition to certain gender-specific illnesses is a major reason to do so.

    That being said, the state take your word for it when you tell them who the father is.

  20. Runcie,

    > Regarding Birth Certificates, is this correct, isn’t it be who donates the womb (the “birth mother”)?

    Yes. Surrogacy is a legal minefield in the UK. You have to adopt your offspring after birth, and the surrogate mother can change her mind at the last minute, refuse to let you adopt, and keep the child. Bizarrely, the surrogate’s husband is also the official father of the child, and also has the right to refuse to allow the adoption. The donors of the genetic material (what a horrible phrase) have no rights to the child — though the child has the right to know who they are.

    This is why surrogacy in the UK is very rare. Well, that and the fact that surrogates are legally barred from charging for their services.

    That’s a good reason to overhaul the system. Someone having their genitals cut off isn’t.

  21. Matthew L – “Why is it necessary to record on the birth certificate who the sperm came from and who the egg came from? What’s wrong with recording the parents as “parent”?”

    He is not asking for birth certificates to record “parent”. By all means, if we want to make this change, we should make this change. He is asking for government records to be retrospectively altered. He is asking the government to take a page out of 1984 and destroy an accurate but politically unacceptable document and create a false but politically convenient replacement.

  22. “He is not asking for birth certificates to record “parent”.”

    From Tim’s summary of the article:

    “she challenged the refusal of the Registrar General to alter the certificates to describe her simply as “parent” or “father/parent”.”

    So apparently she is.

    Dr Cromarty (hopefully not a GP):

    “Knowing where you got your Sex-linked health problems?”

    I take it you’re against anonymous sperm donation then?

    “Avoiding marrying a half sibling?”

    Putting “parent” on the birth certificate achieves that.

  23. Hmm, recording both parents as ‘parent’ could be dodgy – how will the State know who is the mother and who is the father for political purposes, eg custody, screwing the man for cash forevermore, etc?

  24. Matthew L,

    > So apparently she is.

    No, I think you’ve missed the distinction SMFS was quite rightly drawing. He’s not asking for a change in what is recorded on birth certificates from now on; he is asking for existing birth certificates to be changed. That is a huge difference.

  25. Mr Ecks: ie he is the Father, whatever he may do to himself– to be overlaid by lying leftist bollocks

    Presumably that’s in fact lying leftist scar tissue now.

  26. > I take it you’re against anonymous sperm donation then?

    Well, firstly, what point are you making here? On a birth certificate with two entries for “Parent” and “Parent”, there would be doubt about the gender of each. There’s no doubt about the gender of a sperm donor.

    Anonymous sperm donation is currently illegal in the UK. (At least, if done through official sperm banks with test tubes and syringes and so on: I imagine there are all sorts of imprudent but legal ways to get hold of sperm from anonymous men and put it inside you.)

    Personally, I’d like to see it legalised again, but there should be a way for offspring to get hold of anonymised medical records. That would be quite easy to arrange. But again, they would never be in any doubt that it was the anonymised medical records of their father, not their mother, they were looking at, would they?

  27. Dr Cromarty (hopefully not a GP)

    Why did you say that? It’s a bit of a non-sequitur. Or were you just trying to be gratuitously insulting ?

    Am I against anonymous sperm donation? Well it’s hardly ideal, is it? I wouldn’t ban it but knowing your genetic heritage is helpful and in some medical cases vital.

    My main objection is the fact that it is asking everyone to lie for his/her ends and as was pointed out about it’s not his/her birth certificate to alter.

    It is incumbent on JK to make a case to alter the current system of registration of births (which isn’t broken do why fix it?). JK signally hasn’t so must live with it. Hard cheese, mate.

    What other airbrushing of history (i.e. lying) would you like to see the State engage in?

  28. Incidentally, I note that this man, while demanding that mention of his gender be expunged from his children’s birth certificates, hasn’t asked that mention of their own gender be removed. What if they want to have similar operations one day, but are stuck with “Male” or “Female” printed on their birth certificates? He might have considered that, if he weren’t a narcissist.

  29. Seems reasonable to me.

    Not to me. The birth certificate records the state of affairs at the time of the birth. My wife’s birth certificate shows her place of birth as “Leningrad, USSR”. The former has since changed its name, the latter no longer exists. But nevertheless, the record shows she was born in Leningrad, USSR and that can never be changed. Her passport, which more describes the current situation, puts her down as being born in St. Petersburg.

    Yes, this does confuse the hell out of some functionaries who cannot understand why both the city and country differ.

  30. I can’t work out how a rarely used bookkeeping entry would make a substantial difference to JKs quality of life.

    It’s rarely used, until you do something like try to get foreign residency or get married abroad. A lot of Brits don’t realise that these documents are often used to assist in your dealings with foreign authorities, not domestic ones. In that light, it might be a good idea to keep the, erm, conventional format.

  31. I’m eagerly awaiting one of the “furries” who’s undergone species reassignment initiating High Court proceedings over eligibility for Crufts.
    Got to come.
    My betting’s 60/40 for a win.

  32. “Why did you say that?”

    Because GPs are supposed to have compassion for their patients, even if they’re transgender.

    “Or were you just trying to be gratuitously insulting ?”

    Awfully thin-skinned to think that, aren’t you? I thought people here were against the wanton taking of offence?

  33. @MatthewL

    In what way have I not shown compassion? By not wanting to grant his/her every whim?

    You, however, are showing us just how caring you are by posting on a blog. Wow. I think it’s called Virtue Signalling.

    You were being gratuitously insulting. Whether I took offence is quite another matter.

  34. > Because GPs are supposed to have compassion for their patients

    Personally, I fail to see how supporting “sex reassignment” surgery is compassionate. I fully support the right to change sex: it’s your body, do what you want with it. But the fact is that you cannot change sex, not with current technology. People who want to change sex are sold a crock of shit by doctors who assure them that it is doable. And they are then, frankly, butchered, and made dependent on mood-altering drugs for the rest of their lives. It’s fraud. And you don’t demonstrate compassion to the victims of fraud by supporting the fraudsters.

  35. The motto of the Royal College if GPs is Cum Scientia Caritas so I guess it’s an aspiration if not always a reality.

    My GP is a nice man. Very compassionate when I’ve needed it, but also efficient and knowledgable.

  36. Of all the dilemmas in family law at the moment. Same sex parents, birth mother but not biological mother, three parent families (third “parent” with a very small part to play, admittedly), rights of surrogates, sperm donors, etc. This must count as possibly the most trivial case to found a precedent on.

  37. > My transgender friends who have had SRS surgery are very happy with the results.

    Good for them. They haven’t changed sex, though.

    Also, transgender people have a rather high suicide rate. So I’m glad your friends are happy, but they may not be an indicative sample.

    Also, the thing about having to take pills or injections for the rest of your life is that it gets wearing. Talk to people with chronic conditions such as diabetes or hypothyroidism or excessive blood clotting, and they’ll tell you they don’t mind taking the drugs at first, and then, after a few years, they begin to get sick of it. The level of organisation and dependency is simply a pain in the arse. Once simple things like going on holiday somewhere foreign become complex, as you have to have letters from doctors and check local laws in case your drugs get lost or forgotten. Staying overnight with a paramour becomes more difficult and less romantic. And it NEVER EVER ends. (The inconvenience, not the night of passion.)

    I’m guessing most of your friends haven’t been transgender for twenty-odd years yet. And remember, being transgender won’t make them immune to any of those other conditions. Their drug routine can easily go from being the only drug they take to one of just five or six. And, I can assure you, the more there are, the more annoying it gets.

    I do not believe the relentlessly escalating eternal pain in the arse aspect of SRS is stressed by doctors to would-be patients.

  38. @b(n)is, there was that barmy bloke who had tattoos & implanted whiskers & fangs not so long ago. His right, of course.

    Didn’t make him a tiger. Wouldn’t even if he got a law passed that meant we had to put him in the zoo.

  39. I do not believe the relentlessly escalating eternal pain in the arse aspect of SRS is stressed by doctors to would-be patients.

    Does that mean they are doing it wrong?

  40. SMFS, fair point on retconning govt records. Not good on principle. Tim N, sure, I can see there’s any number of states that would respond poorly to this kind of change, so we wouldn’t want to give the kids such a disadvantage either. Thanks.

    Squander, Dr C, excuse my ignorance but I don’t actually know: is it easy to dig inheritable illnesses out of an absent parent’s medical files?

  41. Dunno Julia
    Put him into the zoo’s tiger breeding programme. See how he gets on. Mustn’t be hasty.

  42. Interesting debate. Interesting attitudes.

    Reminds me of those people who insist that a person is either “black” or “white”, usually for reasons of legal discrimination. There’s no in between. I recall the case of one South African black woman who was albino and whiter than most white people, but still legally black. There are the “aboriginal” people in Australia who look totally caucasian, that Andrew Bolt got into trouble for mentioning. And of course there is the American politician Elizabeth Warren who got preferential treatment for being Native American.

    Rigid categories are a feature of the human urge to simplify – most boundaries in nature are a little bit fuzzy. Gender consists of a concatenation of multiple properties and attributes, and most people have all of one or all of the other. But when you find people with some attributes from one category and some from another, it’s a matter of choice which you use to draw the line. You could do it on the basis of who is tall and who is short, who is hairy and who is glabrous, strong or weak, high pitched voice or low, attracted to men or attracted to women. Who is employed in a stereotypical “man’s job” or “woman’s job”. Who is an Olympic East-German shot-putter and who is a hairdresser. It’s complex.

    Some people are messed up, with the genitals of one sex and the brains of the other. We cannot at the moment change people’s brains. It’s a lot easier to change their genitals, to make them slightly less messed up as people.

    But some people in society insists that everybody has to fit into neat little boxes, and make life incredibly difficult for those who don’t, But they’re a tad inconsistent about how those boxes are defined. If a person’s mind and genitals don’t agree, these people insist that the external appearance of the genitals is what matters, not the mind. But if they say, “OK then, I’ll change the genitals” then all of a sudden that’s not good enough. Now they’ve got to change all the internal organs as well. And no doubt if medical technology advanced to the point they could do so, the goalposts would shift again.

    It would be a hell of a lot easier if we didn’t have these rigid boxes at all, and it didn’t matter what sex people were or said they were. So long as no harm is being done to others without their informed consent, why not? And whatever happened to being polite to people, and respecting their wishes about what they want to be called? Sadly, people aren’t so tolerant or polite. The sexes are segregated, just as the races used to be. “You’re in the box we put you in, you must behave the way we say you’ll behave, and you can’t ever get out.”

    That said, I would tend to agree that retrospectively changing birth certificates is probably going over the top. I suspect the issue is that it requires constantly explanations that the person doesn’t want to give – as in “yes, we really are both little Johny’s parents, even though my name is not the one on his birth certificate and we’re both women…” It’s understandable. However, I’d say it’s better to have to give a complicated truth than potentially mislead.

  43. “Some people are messed up, with the genitals of one sex and the brains of the other.”

    Trouble is, on the next thread down the progressive point of view is there’s no difference between a male & a female brain.

    Very confusing.

  44. NiV – “Some people are messed up, with the genitals of one sex and the brains of the other.”

    This is a theological statement on the order of claiming a priest turns bread and wine into the literal blood and body of Christ. You have no evidence for it. There is no reason to think it is true. But you expect all of us to agree. Odd.

    “We cannot at the moment change people’s brains. It’s a lot easier to change their genitals, to make them slightly less messed up as people.”

    There is not a lot of evidence that changing their genitals makes them even slightly less messed up as people. It certainly does not bring their brains into alignment with their genitals.

    “But if they say, “OK then, I’ll change the genitals” then all of a sudden that’s not good enough.”

    Because they do not change their genitals. They do not have female brains to begin with, of course. But what they end up with is a crude mimicry of female genitals. Not actual female genitals.

    “So long as no harm is being done to others without their informed consent, why not?”

    I am not sure it is a good idea to encourage someone who thinks they are a tiger to become a tiger. I think that is a mockery of the medical profession. Just as you should not cut off a healthy leg because someone thinks they should not have it. True compassion, genuine medical ethics, should result in the patient being helped to accept who they are.

    But even if you don’t accept that, the problem with the Trans movement is its utter indifference for the rights of others and their insistence that we have to buy into their sad delusions. Which they are willing to enforce by law and any other means at hand.

    “And whatever happened to being polite to people, and respecting their wishes about what they want to be called?”

    Says the people who cannot stop calling everyone else bigots.

  45. “the problem with the Trans movement is its utter indifference for the rights of others”

    And how have your rights been impinged by a trans person, SMFS?

  46. NiV,

    > But when you find people with some attributes from one category and some from another, it’s a matter of choice which you use to draw the line.

    Couldn’t agree more.

    > Some people are messed up, with the genitals of one sex and the brains of the other. We cannot at the moment change people’s brains. It’s a lot easier to change their genitals, to make them slightly less messed up as people.

    See, this is nonsense. We are in fact very good at changing people’s brains. We can talk peaceful people into committing genocide. We can persuade people that they are possessed by the spirits of the dead. We can condition people to be sexually aroused by someone wearing a gas mask or a squirrel suit. Changing brains is right up there with using tools as a quintessential human ability.

    There is currently a political dogma that the one aspect of human psychology that cannot be changed is sexuality. That dogma arose from a strategic decision to equate homosexuality with racism. As a political strategy, it seems to have worked very well, but it should not be confused with a scientific fact.

    And we are really bad at changing genitals. Female-to-male transgenders do not end up with working penises. Male-to-female are a bit better off, but do not end up with vaginas.

    > If a person’s mind and genitals don’t agree, these people insist that the external appearance of the genitals is what matters, not the mind.

    Not at all. What defines the difference between male and female is DNA.

    > But if they say, “OK then, I’ll change the genitals” then all of a sudden that’s not good enough. Now they’ve got to change all the internal organs as well.

    Not at all. They haven’t got to do anything. As far as I’m concerned, you have the right to do whatever you want to your body. Have eight extra ears sewn on for all I care. But the words “male” and “female” do actually mean something, and what they mean is not currently changeable. This is a fact about current technology, not a political opinion.

    I have no objection whatsoever to people who want to change sex or to people who have surgery so they can look more like the opposite sex. I object to doctors who are apparently unwilling to admit that an actual sex change is currently nowhere near possible and so sell “sex changes” to their patients. They’re lying. They’re selling a whole heap of problems as a solution.

    It’s worth noting that doctors used to have a similar solution to certain mental illnesses. “Insane? No problem: it’s your brain that is causing the difficulty, so we’ll just cut bits of it out.” My objection to that is not some sort of prejudice against the patients who were lobotomised; it is a moral objection to the arrogant butchering quacks who did it.

    > It would be a hell of a lot easier if we didn’t have these rigid boxes at all, and it didn’t matter what sex people were or said they were.

    Male and female aren’t human inventions.

    > So long as no harm is being done to others without their informed consent, why not?

    OK, real-life example from my home town. A male transvestite who insists on identifying as a woman to the extent of insisting that his employers let him use the female toilets. His employers relented. A large number of their female employees then got upset that they no longer actually had female-only toilets because they had a male colleague who could walk in at any moment. And why shouldn’t they get upset about that? That employee insisted on dozens of concessions to be made especially for him, and his PC employer folded, to their detriment. He didn’t give the remotest fuck whether harm was being done to others: he made life difficult and awkward for his employer, his colleagues, and customers, all the while shouting about his “rights”. Me me me me me.

    There are victims of brutal rapes out there who are terrified of men. They often use female-only spaces. Seems reasonable enough to me. And there are now men (yes, men, whatever they may choose to call themselves) who insist on their “right” to barge into these female-only spaces. What do you imagine the rape victims think? “Oh, it’s OK, he’s wearing heels, so actually this isn’t threatening at all.”

    > And whatever happened to being polite to people, and respecting their wishes about what they want to be called?

    Fine by me. If they want to invent a new pronoun, hey, go for it, and I’ll use it. But the existing words “he” and “she” already mean something. I was already using them, thanks.

  47. Matthew L – “And how have your rights been impinged by a trans person, SMFS?”

    The trans-movement is creating a totalitarian environment where I could be fired for simply stating an opinion. And yet that is not enough for them. Some trans people tried to get J. Michael Bailey jailed for expressing an opinion.

  48. > Matthew L

    “the problem with the Trans movement is its utter indifference for the rights of others”

    And how have your rights been impinged by a trans person, SMFS? <

    By what's being discussed here. The right of the rest of us to consider the person on our own terms, not there's.
    Remember. The name appearing on the documentation under question is, by definition, not for the benefit person wanting wanting it removed. He/she already knows his/her relationship with the child. Doesn't need a piece of paper to tell him/her. The purpose of the document is to inform everyone else.(bar the mother, one supposes. Does one suppose?). So it's everyone else's view of what should be on the document, matters. His/her opinion is irrelevant.

    This would, incidentally, be my view on single sex marriage. A couple are free to have any sort of arrangement they wish with each other. But they should have no expectation anyone else should respect it. Not in their choice.

  49. ” I could be fired for simply stating an opinion”

    That’s always been the case. Go up to your boss and tell him you think he’s a cunt who shouldn’t be managing his own bodily functions let alone your place of employment, and his wife’s a fat cunt, and see how long it takes him to fire you.

  50. “So no, none of your rights have been affected by a trans person.”
    If you’re changing or removing details from an official document, of course ones rights are being affected. The document isn’t reflecting the reality it’s supposed to be representing. The one the viewer is making judgements on.To be short & sweet, it’s lying. Being lied to, in this instance, is a fundamental breach of ones rights. The viewer “owns” the document as much as anyone else does. So theft.

  51. “If you’re changing or removing details from an official document, of course ones rights are being affected. ”

    Have you or SMFS or anyone else commenting on this thread ever had their documents changed by a transgender person?

    “The document isn’t reflecting the reality it’s supposed to be representing.”

    Well according to the woman in question, that’s the case now. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Recognition_Act_2004

    “Being lied to, in this instance, is a fundamental breach of ones rights. The viewer “owns” the document as much as anyone else does. So theft.”

    That’s an interesting legal position. I’d love to get a lawyer’s opinion on that.

  52. Matthew L – “So no, none of your rights have been affected by a trans person.”

    You can insist on your own fantasy world if you like. But it still won’t become true.

    Matthew L – “That’s always been the case. Go up to your boss and tell him you think he’s a cunt who shouldn’t be managing his own bodily functions let alone your place of employment, and his wife’s a fat cunt, and see how long it takes him to fire you.”

    So now you have done what? Proved the Cultural Revolution in China did not exist? Proved that I. G. Farben did not behave unreasonably when the Nazis made them fire all their Jewish employees? After all, one of them might have told his boss his wife was a fat c*nt!

    This is pathetic.

  53. Matthew,

    > Have you or SMFS or anyone else commenting on this thread ever had their documents changed by a transgender person?

    Have you ever been refused service at a diner in Alabama because you’re black?

  54. “Have you ever been refused service at a diner in Alabama because you’re black?”

    I’m not complaining that my rights are being hurt by racism.

    “So now you have done what? Proved the Cultural Revolution in China did not exist? Proved that I. G. Farben did not behave unreasonably when the Nazis made them fire all their Jewish employees?”

    Where did you get all that? Are you reading a thread in some parallel universe? You said that because of transgender people “I could be fired for simply stating an opinion”. I said that that was the case before transgender people had *any* rights.

    “I pity you if you need a lawyer to spot a lie.”

    Try reading what I was replying to.

  55. > I’m not complaining that my rights are being hurt by racism.

    No, you’re saying that, if an individual can’t give an example of their own rights being infringed by something, they shouldn’t complain about it. I prefer to live in a world where we may speak up for others.

    > I said that that was the case before transgender people had *any* rights.

    You’re not comparing like for like. Yes, you may be fired for telling your boss he’s a fat cunt, and you always could be. But that’s not just stating an opinion; it’s also breaking all sorts of rules about professionalism, insubordination, politeness, etc. It’s also something you’re doing to your boss. What is happening now — and this isn’t just in respect to transgender people; it’s the new modus operandi of the outraged Left — is consistent attempts to make people unemployed for stating their opinion. Some people were talking about campaigning to get RBS to fire me, not because I’d done something harmful to my employer — quite the opposite — not because I’d expressed some weird extremist fascistic opinions, but simply because I’d said something those SJWs disagreed with. The idea is that your employer fires you not because you have harmed them but because campaigners will do all they can to harm them until they fire you. The idea is that, if you disagree with the SJWs, they will do what they can to make you lose your job, impoverishing you and your family. It’s extortion. It’s fascism. And it is a new thing; it is not the same old same old. Which is why Jon Ronson’s just written a book about the phenomenon, and none of the reviews are saying “Why’s he even bothered writing this? Things are exactly the same as they always were.”

    Look at Brendan Eich: forced out of his job because he exercised his democratic right and supported a policy which, at the time, Obama at least claimed also to support. Brendan Eich did not insult Mozilla or otherwise do anything to harm them; it was the SJWs who were harming them, and Mozilla caved to the extortion. It’s no longer enough for the bastards to win an election: now they have to hunt down and punish everyone who voted for the other side, to make sure they don’t do it again.

    But you insist that there is no problem whatsoever with that unless one of us can give a concrete example of our own rights being infringed.

  56. “Trouble is, on the next thread down the progressive point of view is there’s no difference between a male & a female brain.”

    Either there is or there isn’t. If there is, then it’s possible to get them the wrong way round. If there isn’t, the progressives are right. Which prospect fills you with the greater horror? 😉

    Personally, I think it’s obvious there is, or nobody would be complaining about it because they’d never notice, but I’m not going to waste any time arguing with people who think otherwise.

    “We can condition people to be sexually aroused by someone wearing a gas mask or a squirrel suit.”

    You can only do so by forming mental associations from the gas mask or squirrel suit to a pre-existing something else that is already arousing. Some stuff’s built-in, other stuff gets stuck to it.

    You can condition Pavlov’s dog to salivate by feeding him after ringing a bell. Bells are not naturally appetizing, but food is. If the reaction to food wasn’t built in, you could ring the bell as much as you liked, it’d have no effect. You can’t condition someone to salivate at the sound of a bell by giving them electric shocks every time it rings. That would condition them into flinching.

    So the question is, where does the built-in stuff that other conditioning is built on come from? If it’s random or arbitrary, what explains the coincidence of almost *everyone* salivating at the thought of food and being aroused at the thought of the opposite sex? And given the obvious evolutionary advantages, why the hell *wouldn’t* it be built in?

    So if it’s built in, there’s some mechanism that implements it, and that mechanism can therefore go wrong. It seems pretty straightforward to me – I suspect people only have ideological reasons to argue.

    “But the words “male” and “female” do actually mean something, and what they mean is not currently changeable.”

    What do they mean?

    “Not at all. What defines the difference between male and female is DNA.”

    But what *specifically* about the DNA defines this? Do you mean the XX versus XY chromosome thing? But what about people with XXY? What about people with a broken Y that fails to produce all the required hormones? What about people with testosterone insensitivity, where the hormone is produced but the cells don’t respond to it the way they should? Or some do and some don’t?

    “Male and female aren’t human inventions.”

    But female-only spaces are.

    “There are victims of brutal rapes out there who are terrified of men. They often use female-only spaces.”

    Yup. And there are victims of brutal homophobic and transphobic attacks who are terrified of men, and would like some private spaces too. There are people who wouldn’t want a gay person getting their jollies from looking at them naked in the changing rooms. There are people who are terrified of skinhead thugs with swastika tattoos, and wouldn’t want to share a space with them. But they don’t get the option.

    “he made life difficult and awkward for his employer, his colleagues, and customers, all the while shouting about his “rights”.”

    That’s what rights are for.

    Whenever you have a conflict of interest between people, one or the other is going to be unhappy. We have social conventions deciding which side loses. If one black person works in an office full of white supremacists, and complains about being relegated to the bucket outside because he’s not allowed in the white’s-only toilet, his shouting is indeed difficult and awkward for his employer, colleagues, and customers. But the alternative is that it be difficult and awkward for *him*. Why is that any better?

  57. The thing is Squander, people don’t have to listen to the SJWs. All they’re doing is publicising people’s opinions. Let the market decide, and if the market decides that homophobia and transphobia are unacceptable then I’m ok with that.

    If you want to see real persecution, this is what it looks like:

    http://www.vocativ.com/world/russia/russia-gay-propaganda-law-lesbian-teacher/

    “But you insist that there is no problem whatsoever with that unless one of us can give a concrete example of our own rights being infringed.”

    Not exactly. People like SMFS are actually claiming that their own rights are being infringed – and not because anyone’s trying to get them fired either. Basically they should put up or shut up.

  58. NiV,

    > But what about people with XXY? What about people with a broken Y that fails to produce all the required hormones? What about people with testosterone insensitivity, where the hormone is produced but the cells don’t respond to it the way they should?

    All awkward cases, who have my sympathy, and certainly deserve some legal leaway. For instance, those people who are actually born of indeterminate sex and end up deciding their sex at a later date — usually early teens — based on what surgery is appropriate, should be allowed to change the sex on their birth certificate. They currently face massive legal battles to do so (unless things have changed since I last heard).

    Very few transgenders fall into that category. Unsurprisingly: people who have to have lots of necessary surgery are less likely to choose to have extra unnecessary surgery.

    Matt,

    > The thing is Squander, people don’t have to listen to the SJWs. All they’re doing is publicising people’s opinions. Let the market decide, and if the market decides that homophobia and transphobia are unacceptable then I’m ok with that.

    But that’s not what is happening. The market isn’t deciding which opinions are acceptable. The market is deciding how much hassle is worth it. You’re trying to run a business and you’ve got protestors outside, and protestors writing to all your suppliers telling them not to do business with you or else, and protestors loudly refusing to do business with all your customers, and protestors launching DOS attacks against your website, and protestors sending hate mail to your employees, and they’ll stop if you just do what they demand.

    Tell me, in Germany in the early 30s, was it OK to let the market decide? “Fire the Jew and we won’t destroy your business.” How is that different?

    If you don’t like the Nazi analogy, how about the Mafia? It’s their tactic too.

  59. Oh, and…

    > If you want to see real persecution …

    No, the fact that there are different degrees of persecution does not mean that some are real and some aren’t. Obviously.

  60. “Tell me, in Germany in the early 30s, was it OK to let the market decide? “Fire the Jew and we won’t destroy your business.” How is that different?”

    What’s your proposal then? Muzzle them? So much for freedom of speech.

    By the way, your views on sexual reassignment surgery are way out of date. The surgery for FtM is still awful, which is why very few get it done, but MtF is actually pretty good these days.

    The other thing to remember is that transgender people know how bad it’s going to be to have to be on hormones etc their entire life – and yet they still choose it, because to them the alternative is worse. Revealed preferences and all that. Doesn’t that say something about how they feel?

  61. > I assume you’re against this, too?

    On the one hand, we have members of a group deciding what that group should do, based on a democratic vote. On the other, we have outsiders threatening and causing harm if a group doesn’t do what they demand whether it likes it or not. Yeah, exactly the same thing.

    The fact that “We will harm your company until you fire staff we don’t like” and “We will hound you to your dying day and make you unemployable if you express a thought we don’t like” are succeeding so much at the moment is a serious problem. You seem to think that’s OK as long as you agree with the reason why the extortionists don’t like their victims. But why do you think that’s not going to change? If something is successful, it becomes more popular and widespread. You think these wildly successful campaigns aren’t eventually going to be used to punish someone for something which Matthew L doesn’t think is punishmentworthy? Are you that naive?

    I live in Northern Ireland. We have plenty of “Nice business you’ve got here. Shame if something were to happen to it.” No-one talks about how great it is. And it doesn’t suddenly become nice if you change the motives of the perps.

    > What’s your proposal then? Muzzle them? So much for freedom of speech.

    A letter saying “Do what we demand or we do this bad thing to you” is not protected by freedom of speech, nor should it be. Extortion is already illegal. We just need to start recognising this particular type of extortion as extortion. Which it is.

    You think Brendan Eich has freedom of speech? He supported a completely legal political campaign and was sacked years later. His views were exactly in line with what President Obama claimed to believe. Agree with the elected President: lose your job. Yet the extortionists who got him sacked support Obama. That must rankle a tad. It’s almost as if the purpose of the campaign was to make an example of him in order to send a message to other voters.

    > transgender people know how bad it’s going to be to have to be on hormones etc their entire life

    Well, obviously not. No-one knows what an entire lifetime of anything is going to be like. This is trivially true.

    Any doctor can tell you that most people on lifelong medication — even of the life-saving variety — go through phases of not taking it. This is not because they love it so much. Transgenders are no exception. I’ve read accounts by them about it. Taking medicine every day for the next fifteen- to twenty-thousand days is a tough gig.

    > your views on sexual reassignment surgery are way out of date. … MtF is actually pretty good these days.

    My views on sexual reassignment surgery are that it leaves you having to take hormone pills for the rest of your life. You apparently agree with that. That would not be true if you had actually changed sex.

    I’ve said repeatedly that I have no problem whatsoever with people having whatever surgery they like. “Sexual reassignment” surgery, however, is misnamed and is being mis-sold.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.