So Much For Science

Timmy has discussed this one. However, I can’t let it pass.

The Central London Employment Tribunal case upheld the sacking of tax expert Maya Forstater, 45, on Wednesday over ‘offensive’ tweets questioning government plans to allow people to self-identify as another gender.

Miss Forstater, who worked for the Centre for Global Development, was let go by the think tank after sharing her views on reforms to Gender Recognition Certificates.

The case was viewed as a test of whether gender critical views – that there are only two biological sexes and it is not possible to change between them – could be protected philosophical beliefs under the 2010 Equality Act.

Employment Judge James Tayler rejected that view in his landmark judgment, which said Miss Forstater’s views are ‘incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others’.

If the employment judge had sided with Miss Forstater, firms would have been barred from sacking staff if they expressed the belief that there are only two genders, even if some people found that offensive.

Okay, I have no problem with the idea that an employer might want to dismiss someone because their views are incompatible with the ethos of the organisation. Their gaff, their rules.

What is very disturbing here is the Orwellian judgement. This judge is denying biological fact. There are only two sexes (some odd mutant aberrations notwithstanding) and you cannot change sex. GRS is plastic surgery that creates a facsimile of the opposite sex. You can make a man look like a woman and if the subject is young enough, a very passable one. But that person will still have XY chromosomes, will not have a uterus and ovaries, will still have a prostate and will never have child-bearing hips. And, having lost the testes, will be infertile.

For some, this is a necessary and painful process so that their body now aligns with how they feel in their heads and that’s fine. Their body, their choice and most reasonable people will treat them as they appear, as we are a polite society.

However, they have not changed sex. A transwoman is not the same thing as a biological woman and no amount of wishing it was so will make it so. And this dreadful judgement is a classic denial of reality, not least it is totalitarian in nature.

However Judge Tayler ruled that there is no legal right to ignore the rights of transgender people, especially as misgendering someone can cause ‘enormous pain’.

In his judgement he said: ‘If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), that person is legally a woman. That is not something [Miss Forstater] is entitled to ignore.

Fuck freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of conscience, eh? Fuck reality and scientific truth.

[Miss Forstater’s] position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Actually, yes, it does, because she is factually and scientifically correct. You, sir, are a charlatan who would deny reality and are willing to use the law to suppress truth. It is you who is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

“You are a slow learner, Winston.”
“How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”
“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

We really have arrived in Orwell’s dystopian future. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Reality is false and falsehood is reality.

8 Comments

  1. I think every body should emulate the artist formerly known as Prince.

    Gender formerly known as ?

    Surely peak insanity can’t be far away.

    If Boris wants to win genuine popularity he can’t just – quietly – start repealing shite like this.

      • Indeed, silly of me!

        He’ll have to shout pretty loud to be heard over the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the next few years though.

        Looks like the Donald might walk it next year. Seems like the “democrats” might be having a corbyn moment!

  2. Hmm, I wonder what the composition of the Gravity Derecognition Certificate Awarders would be? And would the learned Judge take a trip in a plane awarded one? The power of a piece of paper,eh? Who’d a thunk it?

  3. It is not a matter of belief. It is a matter of scientific fact. All mammals are either genetically male or female under normal developmental conditions. The woman in question is absolutely correct. No bit of paper changes your genes. This legal eagle is obviously not a scientist. I know my genetics and I know my anatomy. There are two distinct sexes and that’s the end of the matter. The law is “A Ass” in this matter as well as treating nationality as a race or racial identity. I never had a very high opinion of law students at university. I think this bloke proves me correct.

  4. “In his judgement he said: ‘If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), that person is legally a woman.” I thought that I read somewhere that the person in question did not have a GRC. That “if” not being the case seems to render the judgement erroneous.

  5. “because she is factually and scientifically correct.”

    So what you are saying is – the judge was an arts graduate…

Comments are closed.