Perceived sex or gender
Perhaps it’s all been a misunderstanding?
Does discrimination against women happen on the basis of actual sex, or is it just on the basis of who is wearing a skirt?
It’s all a matter of perception.
Won’t somebody please think of the boys facing Female Genital Mutilation.
I don’t see how it would be possible to go any lower either. I can imagine there are many ways to hit rock bottom, but I can’t see how one could go beyond that.
If it’s an effeminate boy, it’s called “gender confirmation surgery.”
And if they’ve been on puberty blockers, there’s a fair chance they’ll never orgasm. However, this is an unintended byproduct, and not the main point.
This is just idiotic. Of course people are discriminated on the grounds of how they are perceived. Because we first have to perceive someone before we can actually conclude things about that person.
That a man can be mistaken for a woman and thus can experience discrimination meant against women, doesn’t contradict that the reason the discrimination happens is rooted in attitudes towards women.
Thought I would repeat that; it needs to be said over and over. Why are effeminate boys the target of abuse? Because hatred of women.
Seriously, the idea that Kirsty needs to have that spelled out makes one wonder what century she lives in – or what sort of Kool-Aid she has been drinking. (I think I know the answer to that; it’s rhetorical.)
I first read Blackman’s tweets before my morning coffee. the most I could manage was a slow blink as my brain pretty much stopped processing at that point. Literally a case of does not compute. Now though a feel a deep and slow burning anger that any supposedly sentient being with a supposed interest in social justice can be so fucking obliviously ignorant and be working so very hard to remain so.
That’s massively stupid, and not just because of the obviousness of discrimination based on sex.
Suppose you have two crimes, A and B. Then we choose to have the same punishment for A and B as for A and ¬B. Thus, the punishment for A alone is the same as when there is also B. So B is not itself punished.
In other words, by saying that she thinks trafficking with FGM should be treated the same as trafficking without FGM, she’s saying that the FGM component isn’t worth punishing.
Nullius:
I don’t think that’s what they mean. Trafficking is usually transporting someone into the sex trade. Trafficking can also be not necessarily for sex, but for service work as virtual slaves. Saying that trafficking – forced transportation for purposes of inflicting (I won’t dignify it with the medical term, ‘performing’) FGM should be punished as severely as other forms of trafficking is not the same thing as thinking it doesn’t deserve punishment.
I think what was intended is that the sex of the children is somehow unable to be determined, but is for whatever reason presumed to be female, and that transporting children for the purpose of inflicting FGM is a crime whether or not it is possible for FGM to be inflicted on them. Consider a truck driver dropping off fifty kidnapped kids, presumed girls, at some genital butchery; it’s the same trafficking, fifty kids, even if twenty of the kids turn out to be boys. It might result in 30 charges of FGM and 50 charges of “trafficking for the purpose of FGM”. At least in this person’s mind.
I don’t think the “perceived sex” argument holds water. A killer bent on killing lawyers who kills some accountants; they were not killed based on “perceived occupation”, and the killer wasn’t going after “people who present as lawyers”.