markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,316
|
Post by markf on Jul 25, 2022 18:10:40 GMT
That is an appalling story and the disruption to your life must be dreadful.
Free speech is a lot different to printing inaccuracies and lies that stir up the fanatics in our society, which in your case would seem to be what happened (I don't know the full facts or what the piece they published was about so can't comment further).
As I say, it is no paragon of virtue but my motives for buying it have never been political, until the last couple of times I would vote Lib Dem as a tactical vote. Corbyn and McDonnell changed all that though.
I will admit to agreeing to some of what it prints but certainly not the more extreme views and in particular as stated before columnists like Hitchens, Platel and Littlejohn.
Once again, that's truly dreadful what happened and I do hope the threat lessens and quickly.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Jul 25, 2022 18:52:57 GMT
Thank you for your kind words Mark, I really appreciate what you just said.
|
|
|
Post by davethegrave on Jul 25, 2022 19:50:35 GMT
It's trendy to "cancel" the Daily Mail.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Jul 26, 2022 8:31:11 GMT
It's trendy to "cancel" the Daily Mail. Comments like this miss the point by a country mile. My grandfather's generation weren't being "trendy" when they took to the streets of East London in the 1930's to protest against the brutal rise of fascism. They were protecting their community against violent, far right extremism, the rise of which was actively encouraged and spearheaded by the Rothermere-owned Daily Mail, the same aristocratic family that still owns and controls the newspaper. The Daily Mail has a well-established track record of fanning the flames of hatred. They actively stigmatised minorities and ruined lives. They still do. There is nothing new about this.
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Jul 26, 2022 8:37:15 GMT
As one of the people who's quite outspoken about not buying such publications (and I have been for years; I'm not a follower of fashion) maybe I should be quite offended by this implication that I do these things because they're "trendy" suggesting 1) I don't have the intelligence to form my own opinions and 2) I am motivated by following the herd/looking cool rather than by having a little compassion and giving a toss about the welfare of people other than myself. But then I don't really think the opinions of people who say things like "it's trendy to cancel the Daily Mail" are worth taking to heart, so fortunately it doesn't bother me.
As for the transphobic narrative currently being pushed by Davies and Rowling et al being based on "biological fact" well anyone who knows very much about biology would gladly tell you that's absolutely not the case. Their oversimplified secondary school level biological insights have very little basis in fact but do conveniently fit into their argument that an already marginalised group of people should be further ostracised, without being explicit enough about it to make themselves look like bad people. I wouldn't expect you to be an expert on biology Mark and of course I'm not one either but I have been making a concerted effort to listen to those who are.
I know this isn't really the forum for this conversation, but it's hard to let things go unchallenged on any platform when they're contributing to things that are hurting real people who are just trying to live their lives. I'm not trying to change your opinions. You've every right to those. This post is more for the benefit of those who are affected by the sort of hate these newspapers stir up and might be feeling kind of hopeless at the moment, or people who are unsure of what "the other side of the argument" is.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,316
|
Post by markf on Jul 26, 2022 9:13:05 GMT
From what I have read, JK Rowling stance is that just because a person identifies as a woman by dressing as such, doesn't make that person a woman in the biological sense, ie unable to have even the potential to give birth and has male genitals.
I don't have any problem with how they wish to identify but that doesn't give them the right to be in certain areas defined as for women only.
Of course if they have gone through or going through the full sex change process that is different.
There are of course people of both sexes who may have a genetic structure closer to that of the sex they were not actually born as and I understand that must be very difficult to live with.
But while seeking to give rights to those who identify as the sex they were not born as, society surely should not simultaneously remove the rights of women?
A very emotive subject the answers to which better people than me don't seem to have.
But l see Rowling's argument and to "cancel" her for that view is an attack on the free speech I was eluding to in my previous post.
Blimey, all this because I pointed out to someone that the DM is the best selling newspaper in the country.
And you're right, this isn't the right platform for such a debate but it does show that diversity is alive and well on the amber planet.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Jul 26, 2022 9:27:27 GMT
From what I have read, JK Rowling stance is that just because a person identifies as a woman by dressing as such, doesn't make that person a woman in the biological sense, ie unable to have even the potential to give birth and has male genitals. I don't have any problem with how they wish to identify but that doesn't give them the right to be in certain areas defined as for women only. Of course if they have gone through or going through the full sex change process that is different. There are of course people of both sexes who may have a genetic structure closer to that of the sex they were not actually born as and I understand that must be very difficult to live with. But while seeking to give rights to those who identify as the sex they were not born as, society surely should not simultaneously remove the rights of women? A very emotive subject the answers to which better people than me don't seem to have. But l see Rowling's argument and to "cancel" her for that view is an attack on the free speech I was eluding to in my previous post. Blimey, all this because I pointed out to someone that the DM is the best selling newspaper in the country. And you're right, this isn't the right platform for such a debate but it does show that diversity is alive and well on the amber planet. Whether it's an "emotive subject" is really beside the point. As a matter of law, the Equality Act 2010 protects gender reassignment. In accordance with section 7(1): "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." Clearly, the law protects people who are "proposing to undergo" gender reassignment, not just those who are going through, or have gone through the gender reassignment process, as you seem to think. Irrespective of whether the Daily Mail and their readers respect the rights of the transgender community, as a matter of law, their rights are safeguarded and protected. Rowling et al have gotten themselves into a right pickle over what is essentially a relatively straightforward issue, and other people have every right to point out and correct their misleading and downright false assertions.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,316
|
Post by markf on Jul 26, 2022 9:34:25 GMT
And perhaps that's her argument.
Any guy could wear a dress to get into a female only area claiming they are in the process of or considering the process of changing sex.
Her concern was for the safety of women whether it be from a voyeur or something more sinister.
Not every law is for the good of all.
Edit to add: Such a view does not make somebody a transphobe either but that is what it gets labelled as.
|
|
|
Post by sallycat on Jul 26, 2022 9:42:17 GMT
Being transgender isn't crossdressing, Mark. Whether you opt to change your physiology or not, it goes a lot deeper than that. There are biological differences between the brains of trans and cis people with the same type of sexual organs. This is part of what I mean about them not understanding biology.
As a woman who is, I hope, in a better position to give a view on what should happen in women-only areas, I completely disagree that trans women shouldn't be welcome there. Trans women are women regardless of whether they've had physical surgery. You shouldn't have to go through risky, frightening and painful surgery just to have the same rights as everyone else, and my personal opinion - as a woman - is that it's utterly ridiculous to say that this in any way compromises the rights of women. A lot of men seem to be saying this. Mainly men who don't normally come across as quite so outspoken about women's rights...
Let's face it, those who are pushing to exclude trans women from women's spaces would NOT rather have a burly, bearded trans man who happens to have a vagina (WHICH THEY CANNOT EVEN SEE) than a slightly androgynous or masculine looking woman in women's clothes with a women's haircut who happens to have a penis (WHICH AGAIN THEY CANNOT SEE). That's not what they want, is it? They just want trans people to go away and stop trying to exist and have rights.
This whole "any man can wear a dress and pretend to be a woman" bulls**t is not a thing that happens in real life. If a man wants to walk into the ladies' loos to sexually assault women then he'll do that regardless. This is completely made up. What IS true is that a trans woman who regularly goes into the MEN'S toilets in a dress etc is almost certain at some point to be assaulted, beaten, sometimes even murdered as a result. But who cares, eh?
Refusing to give a platform to someone who is pushing for harmful discrimination isn't an attack on free speech because that person is them at liberty to go and speak somewhere else. Media and individuals having a choice about whom they allow themselves to represent isn't in opposition to free speech.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Jul 26, 2022 9:44:25 GMT
And perhaps that's her argument. Any guy could wear a dress to get into a female only area claiming they are in the process of or considering the process of changing sex. Her concern was for the safety of women whether it be from a voyeur or something more sinister. Not every law is for the good of all. Edit to add: Such a view does not make somebody a transphobe either but that is what it gets labelled as. I think you've just identified the crux of the problem with the Daily Mail and their readers, Mark. They don't respect democracy and the rule of law. A case in point being your assertion that transgender people don't have the right to be in certain areas. Even after I pointed out that the law does confer that right to the transgender community, you are continuing to assert otherwise. This is precisely why the Daily Mail continues to pose a direct threat to the fundamental values of civilised society.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,316
|
Post by markf on Jul 26, 2022 11:04:27 GMT
That's it label me because of the paper I read and because I happen to agree with someone who they gave a voice to.
I can also think for myself, thanks and I just happen to agree with Rowling and indeed Davies.
I read about them on the BBC website too so how reading a paper defines my thinking when the same info is available via other media outlets is beyond me?
It doesn't.
As for what is going through a person with gender identity conflicts and the very basic need to be the sex they weren't born as, I think I did mention in one para that I was aware that this was the case.
Rowling may not speak for all women, I doubt anybody does but she should be allowed to make her point without fear of retribution. Making her position clear is not a breach of any law as she has not, as far as I am aware, acted upon that point of view.
None of us are going to move our view point on this and while I respect your right to have a different one, so should you to those who differ from yours.
|
|
|
Post by Andy K on Jul 26, 2022 11:16:08 GMT
It's trendy to "cancel" the Daily Mail. I look forward to reading your predictions on what will appear in London Fashion Week this September.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Jul 26, 2022 11:25:10 GMT
It's trendy to "cancel" the Daily Mail. I look forward to reading your predictions on what will appear in London Fashion Week this September. Bigotry is the new black.
|
|
trev
1st team skipper
In Matt We Trust
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by trev on Jul 26, 2022 11:30:34 GMT
That's it label me because of the paper I read and because I happen to agree with someone who they gave a voice to. I can also think for myself, thanks and I just happen to agree with Rowling and indeed Davies. I read about them on the BBC website too so how reading a paper defines my thinking when the same info is available via other media outlets is beyond me? It doesn't. As for what is going through a person with gender identity conflicts and the very basic need to be the sex they weren't born as, I think I did mention in one para that I was aware that this was the case. Rowling may not speak for all women, I doubt anybody does but she should be allowed to make her point without fear of retribution. Making her position clear is not a breach of any law as she has not, as far as I am aware, acted upon that point of view. None of us are going to move our view point on this and while I respect your right to have a different one, so should you to those who differ from yours. No one in a democratic society has to tolerate intolerance, hatred or stigmatisation directed towards a minority group, especially not when that group's rights are safeguarded and protected as a matter of law. It is a completely false narrative to tell someone who has spent their entire working life upholding democracy and the rule of law that they have to respect the views of people who want to tear those institutions down. Transgender people are the one of most marginalised and abused minorities in society. Anyone who wants to take their rights away is not someone worthy of respect. It simply doesn't work like that, Mark.
|
|
markf
Top Performer
Posts: 3,316
|
Post by markf on Jul 26, 2022 12:37:31 GMT
As you say their rights are protected by law and the verbal or written opinions of one or two prominent, if Rowling can be described as such, individuals isn't going to change that law. Or tear down the protections that law gives.
I respect the laws of the land no convictions, yet, but also the right of an individual to be allowed to express their opinions as long as that opinion doesn't, in itself, break the law eg, racism. Of course, if that opinion should lead directly to the breach of any law and can be proved to be that is a different matter.
And that freedom of speech either verbal or written is the whole crux of my argument.
And has f all to do with what paper I read.
|
|