@ech@Pilferjinx Well she never actually believed Trans woman are woman even though she said that she supports us. All started to come out when a Terf got fired for discriminating against Trans colleague and Jo raised her voice in support of the Terf. She basically sounded like a white cishet misogynist man. And from there she is just on revenge path and she doesn’t care who she hurts (kids included). Even if she finds a common ground, there is absolutely nothing she can do to compensate for the damage she has done.
Not fired; the woman in question was on a fixed contract which wasn’t renewed when it came to an end, because she was bullying and acting like an unpleasant arse.
The judgement was careful and thoughtful, but was glossed as “you can’t even say you’re a woman without going to prison these days”. When you read about a judgement that sounds so bizarre as to be unbelievable, there is a good chance (in the UK at the least) that it didn’t say what is reported. (Cf. “We can’t deport terrorists because it’s against their pet cat’s human rights”.) Social media is a machine for making people insane. The rest is history.
The ruling makes for excellent reading. Anyone has a right to their beliefs, but professing those beliefs is not protected if they are not “worthy of respect in a democratic society, being not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others”. In terms of the paradox of tolerance, it’s a remarkable bit of good sense.
Maya Forstater was the name IIRC; that doesn’t spring readily to mind but that line really stuck.
No actions will be sufficient to undo the harm, but there are actions that can demonstrate change and shift the balance of harm to help away from where it is. Her actions are like with climate change, what’s done is done and there are consequences that can’t be avoided, but it still is worth doing a full 180
@ech @Pilferjinx Well she never actually believed Trans woman are woman even though she said that she supports us. All started to come out when a Terf got fired for discriminating against Trans colleague and Jo raised her voice in support of the Terf. She basically sounded like a white cishet misogynist man. And from there she is just on revenge path and she doesn’t care who she hurts (kids included). Even if she finds a common ground, there is absolutely nothing she can do to compensate for the damage she has done.
Not fired; the woman in question was on a fixed contract which wasn’t renewed when it came to an end, because she was bullying and acting like an unpleasant arse.
The judgement was careful and thoughtful, but was glossed as “you can’t even say you’re a woman without going to prison these days”. When you read about a judgement that sounds so bizarre as to be unbelievable, there is a good chance (in the UK at the least) that it didn’t say what is reported. (Cf. “We can’t deport terrorists because it’s against their pet cat’s human rights”.) Social media is a machine for making people insane. The rest is history.
The ruling makes for excellent reading. Anyone has a right to their beliefs, but professing those beliefs is not protected if they are not “worthy of respect in a democratic society, being not incompatible with human dignity and not conflicting with the fundamental rights of others”. In terms of the paradox of tolerance, it’s a remarkable bit of good sense.
Maya Forstater was the name IIRC; that doesn’t spring readily to mind but that line really stuck.
No actions will be sufficient to undo the harm, but there are actions that can demonstrate change and shift the balance of harm to help away from where it is. Her actions are like with climate change, what’s done is done and there are consequences that can’t be avoided, but it still is worth doing a full 180