Worth noting
Is that right?
The English courts consider people who know which sex is which comparable to biblical literalists? Really? Can that possibly be true? Wouldn’t it drive a bulldozer through all English law that relates to women and men?
Tip Jar
There’s a man who’s behind the times. FORSTATER, Benjamin, made gender critical beliefs PROTECTED.
Do you think he knows he’s being a misogynist? Or is he just caught up in virtue signalling?
And the same basis as believing that the Earth was created 5,783 years ago.
And the same basis as believing that the Earth was created 5,784 years ago.
And the same basis as believing that the Earth was created 5,785 years ago.
And the same basis as believing that the Earth was created 5,786 years ago.
And the same basis as believing that the Earth was created 5,787 years ago.
…
And the same basis as believing that the Earth was created 4.543 billion years ago.
By induction that’s the same legal basis as believing the Earth to be 4.543 billion years old.
He is not wrong. It is a Protected Belief in the UK post-Forstater, and I believe that is also the status of Creationism. So Forstater’s case is an improvement on the previous position, but hardly a complete reversal of prior direction.
Is that what he meant? I thought his choice of the word “basis” meant something to do with truth or truthyness or reaonability.
The Bible makes a very clear distinction between man and woman, right there in the first book. So clearly a belief in the biological basis of sex is tantamount to a belief in biblical literalism. QED.
I knew this would happen. When the case was argued in terms of ‘protected belief’, and when the tribunal concluded GC feminism was such, I knew that specific wording would put people in mind of religion. Many forget that there is a difference between belief and faith, which is the element required by religion; mere belief is everywhere and need not be religious at all. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, I believe Earth is round, I believe evolution is true etc. etc.
If we want to make comparisons with religious belief i.e. faith, look no further than the TRA side of the debate. Non-verifiable personal experience claims (“My viewpoint feels a certain way, and I interpret that as the feeling of being a woman!”), claims of martyrdom made in defiance of verifiable data (“trans people are being murdered at above baseline rates”), and of course the mind-body dualism underlying the whole thing.
In the comparison between religion and non-religion, we’re the atheists wondering how the hell so much of the population got suckered by the peer pressure tactics in support of nonsense.
So, only Jewish creationists? If I were to believe that the earth was created in 4004 BC according to the Ussher timeline, then (2022 + 4004 =) 6026 years ago takes me out of that group?
Holms, I agree that’s a concern. On the other hand, though, it’s really difficult to argue that a claim is true if you might lose your job or your career simply for expressing the claim, indeed even for asking if the claim is true.
I have a friend, someone of a libertarian bent, who is not convinced that women are oppressed. My attempts to discuss problems with gender identity ideology with him have been met with a stream of “why does that matter” and “that’s a niche concern”. Most irritatingly, he has decided to make wild guesses about why I hold the views I do. It can’t be because the claims I make are demonstrably true, or that I care about other people, or because I’ve read a fair amount on the subject and have an informed opinion. No, it has to be because I’m engaging in religion-like thinking, or that I’m responding to some personal trauma. He won’t read background material I suggest, he just speculates without justification and says the issue is “confusing”. I’ve told him I cannot discuss this issue with him if he won’t even give me the benefit of the doubt that I have good reasons for saying the things I do, let alone look at the information I provide.
It seems to me that his thought process is the one closer to religion.
Sackbut: Seems like a perfect opportunity to try out the techniques laid out in books like How to Have Impossible Conversations. One of the things they note is the counterproductive futility of providing evidence for one’s claim in a conversation.
Sackbut, I saw someone (in the US context) describe Libertarians as being Republicans who want to smoke dope and have underaged sex. Maybe a bit unkind, but probably not by much. Every libertarian I’ve ever personally met, or whole I’ve been able to observe through their public utterances and actions, has fundamentally been motivated by “I’ll do what I want”. It’s an incoherent and unworkable social and political philosophy. Anarchy for solipsists.
Rob, I dated a libertarian briefly, and I will attest to that. He invited me to a party, where the guest list was half libertarians, half Democrats. While the libertarians were out in the yard making signs to protest having to pay taxes, the Democrats hung in the kitchen chatting about less selfish things.
The guy I dated was extremely specific that his whole reason for libertarianism was that people should not be able to tell him what to do. He refused to obey leash laws, even though a lot of people (like me) are afraid of big dogs. His job was scalping tickets. He had no intention of working a job where someone could tell him what to do.