Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
WestonSalop

Freedom of speech is dead - official!

Recommended Posts

It's official. We are now REQUIRED to speak politically correctly, irrelevant of our own fundamentally held beliefs.  I'm no practicing Christian but I would side with this chaps views of gender any day.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-49904997

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, London Best said:

I think transgenders offend human Dignity!

A bit strong !
They can do as they please, however I am very uncomfortable with the 'protected ' status of such minorities.
It flies in the face of the definition of equality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

A bit strong !
They can do as they please, however I am very uncomfortable with the 'protected ' status of such minorities.
It flies in the face of the definition of equality.

Can you imagine just how bullet-proof a transgender member of the travelling community would be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Can you imagine just how bullet-proof a transgender member of the travelling community would be?

In theory , yes, in practice ,Ive met a few gay members of the travelling community, and they are accepted, and ridiculed at the same time.

Travs are not very PC , as Im sure you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, London Best said:

Agreed!  But they keep trying to make out it is normal.

In a few years it will not be "normal" to-be "normal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Thunderbird said:

Does anyone know why the last transgender thread disappeared?

Probably removed for discrimination.

In other news.

Image may contain: text

The University of Edinburgh is hosting an event conference titled “Resisting Whiteness” where white people are to be banned from speaking. Resisting Whiteness is also the name of the group that has organized the event and describes itself as a QTPOC (queer and trans people of color) organization.

There will be two “safe spaces” at the event, one of which white people will be barred from entering. A blurb for the conference reads that the aim is to “amplify the voices of people of color” and therefore will not be giving the microphone to white people during Q&A’s.

“If you are a white person with a question, please share it with a member of the committee or our speakers after the panel discussion.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Probably removed for discrimination.

In other news.

Image may contain: text

The University of Edinburgh is hosting an event conference titled “Resisting Whiteness” where white people are to be banned from speaking. Resisting Whiteness is also the name of the group that has organized the event and describes itself as a QTPOC (queer and trans people of color) organization.

There will be two “safe spaces” at the event, one of which white people will be barred from entering. A blurb for the conference reads that the aim is to “amplify the voices of people of color” and therefore will not be giving the microphone to white people during Q&A’s.

“If you are a white person with a question, please share it with a member of the committee or our speakers after the panel discussion.”

Amazing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WestonSalop said:

Amazing!!

I know , how wonderful is our inclusive, multiracial ,accepting society ? 🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I know somebody who is fat but identifies as skinny. Apparently they are trans-slender...

:lol::lol: Please stop it. I have to go and do some serious shooting in a bit I won't be able to focus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I know somebody who is fat but identifies as skinny. Apparently they are trans-slender...

Excellent 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as i think the lunatics are running the asylum, i can't help but think back to my last stay in hospital when i was asked by the nurse booking me intro the ward what i wanted to be called, Mr M, robert, rob etc , it made me feel more comfortable everyone calling me Rob. And it makes me think that if you can make someone relaxed in an environment that can be the cause for concern then why not call someone they, or it or whatever, it's not as if it will kill you to do so.

For a religion that is supposed to be tolerant, this doctor isn't really following the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/10/2019 at 21:04, welsh1 said:

As much as i think the lunatics are running the asylum, i can't help but think back to my last stay in hospital when i was asked by the nurse booking me intro the ward what i wanted to be called, Mr M, robert, rob etc , it made me feel more comfortable everyone calling me Rob. And it makes me think that if you can make someone relaxed in an environment that can be the cause for concern then why not call someone they, or it or whatever, it's not as if it will kill you to do so.

For a religion that is supposed to be tolerant, this doctor isn't really following the rules.

I think you make a good point Rob, and I think most people would broadly agree with general human treatment and dignity. But what (I suspect) scares a lot of people is the influence of the trans lobby and the apparent desire to compel speech. I don't know any transgender people but if I did, I would in polite conversation refer to them as whatever (within reason) they would prefer, because that's polite and if they were a friend I would want to be polite to them. I think people fear the slippery slope, with 90+ and counting different gender pronouns would an employer be looking at the wrong end of an employment tribunal for (even accidentally, and therefore 'institutionally') mis-pronouning a person, especially a person with activist tendencies?

The answer to that is yes, if gender identity is made a protected characteristic. 

I think there is a difference between calling someone a preferred thing to make them comfortable, and being made to state, apparently factually, that the entirely biologically male person sitting in front of you is in fact a woman. If doctors can't make statements about biology and anatomy, who can? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/10/2019 at 20:10, harrycatcat1 said:

The world has gone mad.

Happened a long time a go, unfortunately not in a galaxy far far away 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...