Can you go to jail for ‘misgendering’? One British journalist is about to find out

The need to bring all kind of scientists.

All the bio sciencetist who say that their are only two gendered

All the evolutionary scientist to say, no, gender is not fluid

All the scientist who are not under the religion of PC, to say it’s body dysmorohia not one scientist test shows otherwise. Some scientist came under the religion of PC and that made them claim it’s not

Is there a go fund me page to help the sane person battle the crazy-fascist-us government?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boadicea

We have the same problem in the states, you can lose your job, position, salary for calling a guy a guy when he wants to be called a gal.

Yes -- and your point is well taken -- but it's still not against the law to do so... no one is being arrested for it... no one is going to jail for it.

Not yet anyway. That's why it's crucial for us to pay attention as the Equality Act moves through congress. We saw what they did to the ACA. We can expect something similar here.

a reply to: Boadicea

pfft. . .

Try saying the word, "Penis" on a college campus.

originally posted by: JHumm
Anyone who would kill themselves over being called a name is unstable and should seek out medical care.

Stick and stones may break my bones but your words will make me kill myself.....oh wait that's not how it goes.

Exactly. I have much sympathy for the genuinely gender dysphoric. And to the extent of using their preferred pronouns and chosen name, I'm happy to do so for the same reasons I humored my senile grandmother. Because doing otherwise causes unnecessary pain and adds to their confusion.

However, we have to keep in mind that there are others... many others... who are using the genuine suffering of some as emotional blackmail and coercion on a basically kind and compassionate people for their own selfish ends.

originally posted by: SocratesJohnson

Is there a go fund me page to help the sane person battle the crazy-fascist-us government?

Not that I've seen. I hope that if one is put up, that I'll see it posted on one of the "gender critical" sites I check out. I do hope she retains good legal counsel for this police interview.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Boadicea

pfft. . .

Try saying the word, "Penis" on a college campus.

With or without "laydee" in front of it?

I make the mistake of “mis-gendering” once.

In Thailand

They way I see it, in Thailand, it’s the same rules as golf. You gotta play it where it lays.

If mom puts it on your plate, you have to eat it.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
a reply to: Boadicea

This is absolutely ridiculous. The uk has gone full retard. I don't know what else to say.

Cheers - Dave

Careful now Bob, the UK will try and extradite you for using insult speech

a reply to: Boadicea

Have the UK banned the movie " the crying game" yet, surely some Muppet will take offense to it.

originally posted by: Freeborn
This nonsense bears absolutely no resemblance to the UK I live in.

I'm not disputing the veracity of the story as its been well reported.....but its honestly like reading something from another country/world that I live in.

This stupidity has to stop.

You should dispute it as it sounds like the premise of the story is bollocks.

www.theguardian.com...

a reply to: ScepticScot

Thank you for posting the update!

Mother drops action against woman who said she 'mutilated' trans daughter

A woman who contacted the police after a journalist wrongly accused her of mutilating and castrating her trans daughter says she will withdraw her complaint because the case was leading to the spread of misinformation.

Susie Green, who is chief executive of the transgender children’s charity Mermaids and whose daughter Jackie is transgender, said that she had decided to withdraw the complaint against Caroline Farrow because of widespread reports that the dispute had only been about “misgendering”.

To be fair, this is what Caroline Farrow was told by the police who contacted her. But apparently there was more:

But on Wednesday Green pointed to a tweet sent by Farrow on 4 October last year, and subsequently deleted, which read: “What she did to her own son is illegal. She mutilated him by having him castrated and rendered sterile while he was still a child.” Farrow also accused Green of child abuse.

Sounds about right to me. It should be illegal anyway to chemically and/or surgically castrate your child. And that is mutilation by definition. No one has the right to make that decision for a child -- neither parents nor doctors -- and a child is not mature enough to make such a decision for themselves. And as a Trans (kid) Activist with "Mermaids," she encourages and even insists on the same thing for other children.

I totally get that these are not nice things to say. But even worse, they are not nice things to do to anyone's child. It is child abuse. Would it be different if Farrow had simply said that the child was castrated and rendered sterile as a child without directly noting the authority of the parent in doing so? Just pretend like Mom didn't make that decision for her child? The end result is the same; it just gives Mom a clear conscience.

In either event, there is no good reason to criminally prosecute/persecute anyone for words. Especially true words.

So apparently this isn't the first or only time this woman has sicced the police on women:

Second woman is investigated by police over transphobic comments

Womans' rights campaigner, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, has been interviewed by two separate police forces after being accused of committing a hate crime by Susie Green, who runs a charity helping transgender children.

The 44-year-old was first interviewed by West Yorkshire Police last year, on suspicion of malicious communication, following a complaint from Ms Green, who runs the Mermaids charity.

Two officers travelled to Wiltshire where she lives, and questioned her for several hours over six Tweets she had posted.

Keep in mind that Susie Green isn't just a mom doing her best by her child; she is the head of an organization for trans kids that demands "gender affirming" treatment. She even advocates for removing kids from homes where parents do not "cooperate" with things like giving their kids puberty blockers or girls binding their chests and breaking their ribs... She isn't just silencing personal criticism, she is silencing debate and discussion and dissent. This woman is protecting her Trans Activism.

Ms Keen-Minshull explained that she had been interviewed by police at the end of January on suspicion of harassment following two YouTube clips she posted in which she criticised Ms Green for supporting her daughter's transition.

Jackie Green, 25, became the youngest person in Britain to transition when she changed her sex from male to female aged 16.

Ms Keen-Minshull, who set up the charity, Standing Up For Women, admitted that her comments on YouTube were uncompromising, but said she is perfectly entitled to express them.

She said she was still waiting to hear from the police whether she would be charged over the remarks.

Apparently Ms. Green doesn't like this kind of publicity. Good.

a reply to: Boadicea

This kind of thing is so ridiculous!
If I had a dollar for every time I have been mistakenly referred to as "he" or "him" just on ATS I could afford that vacation to Bora Bora I've always wanted to take! I certainly don't think anyone should go to jail for it!

Somebody please stop the planet- I want to get off!

a reply to: Boadicea

Isn't living in the USA, with Free Speech as a guaranteed right awesome?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never get me jailed in the USA .

originally posted by: GeauxHomeYoureDrunk
a reply to: Boadicea

If I had a dollar for every time I have been mistakenly referred to as "he" or "him" just on ATS I could afford that vacation to Bora Bora I've always wanted to take! I certainly don't think anyone should go to jail for it!

LOL! Right??? Same for me.

I've jokingly accused folks of "misgendering" me a couple times since that one video was posted of someone going ballistic over being "misgendered," but for the most part I don't even correct the person if it isn't pertinent to the discussion.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: Boadicea

Isn't living in the USA, with Free Speech as a guaranteed right awesome?
Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never get me jailed in the USA .

Not yet at least. It shouldn't even be a possibility here for that very reason. But nothing is what it should be these days.

I am personally very thankful for everyone in the UK who are raising a stink about this -- despite and/or because of the bullying and abuse they are subject to -- but especially the women. Of course, it's also the women (and their children) who have the most to lose if Trans Activists have their way, so therefore they also have the most to gain by yelling from the rooftops for all to hear.

It's very telling to me that so much of the Trans Activism efforts are focused on commandeering and infiltrating and controlling female spaces and issues, rather than working for their own spaces and best interests.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Thank you for posting the update!

Mother drops action against woman who said she 'mutilated' trans daughter

A woman who contacted the police after a journalist wrongly accused her of mutilating and castrating her trans daughter says she will withdraw her complaint because the case was leading to the spread of misinformation.

Susie Green, who is chief executive of the transgender children’s charity Mermaids and whose daughter Jackie is transgender, said that she had decided to withdraw the complaint against Caroline Farrow because of widespread reports that the dispute had only been about “misgendering”.

To be fair, this is what Caroline Farrow was told by the police who contacted her. But apparently there was more:

But on Wednesday Green pointed to a tweet sent by Farrow on 4 October last year, and subsequently deleted, which read: “What she did to her own son is illegal. She mutilated him by having him castrated and rendered sterile while he was still a child.” Farrow also accused Green of child abuse.

Sounds about right to me. It should be illegal anyway to chemically and/or surgically castrate your child. And that is mutilation by definition. No one has the right to make that decision for a child -- neither parents nor doctors -- and a child is not mature enough to make such a decision for themselves. And as a Trans (kid) Activist with "Mermaids," she encourages and even insists on the same thing for other children.

I totally get that these are not nice things to say. But even worse, they are not nice things to do to anyone's child. It is child abuse. Would it be different if Farrow had simply said that the child was castrated and rendered sterile as a child without directly noting the authority of the parent in doing so? Just pretend like Mom didn't make that decision for her child? The end result is the same; it just gives Mom a clear conscience.

In either event, there is no good reason to criminally prosecute/persecute anyone for words. Especially true words.

We only have Farrows version of what she,was told by police, and since she apparently can't even remember accusing someone of mutilating a child I would treat her version with extreme scepticism.

You and Farrow are of course entitled to your own opinions. However the law says differently.

When you accuse a specific person of abusing a child on a public forum then it would be extremely remiss of the police not to investigate.

Based on the tweet I have seen then there doesn't seem sufficient grounds for a prosecution, however I understand this was an ongoing Twitter conversation so there may be more. Again it is entirely appropriate for the police to investigate.

Worth also noting that the bar for civil action for libel is much lower than that for criminal.

Finally, and this is the important part, it shows that the whole premise of reporting of this matter in the press and this thread is completely misplaced as she is not being investigated for using the wrong pronoun.

People have unquestioningly accepted her version despite how ludicrous it sounds and despite the fact she claims bit to actually remember what she said.

Total fake outrage bait.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: ScepticScot

Thank you for posting the update!

Mother drops action against woman who said she 'mutilated' trans daughter

A woman who contacted the police after a journalist wrongly accused her of mutilating and castrating her trans daughter says she will withdraw her complaint because the case was leading to the spread of misinformation.

Susie Green, who is chief executive of the transgender children’s charity Mermaids and whose daughter Jackie is transgender, said that she had decided to withdraw the complaint against Caroline Farrow because of widespread reports that the dispute had only been about “misgendering”.

To be fair, this is what Caroline Farrow was told by the police who contacted her. But apparently there was more:

But on Wednesday Green pointed to a tweet sent by Farrow on 4 October last year, and subsequently deleted, which read: “What she did to her own son is illegal. She mutilated him by having him castrated and rendered sterile while he was still a child.” Farrow also accused Green of child abuse.

Sounds about right to me. It should be illegal anyway to chemically and/or surgically castrate your child. And that is mutilation by definition. No one has the right to make that decision for a child -- neither parents nor doctors -- and a child is not mature enough to make such a decision for themselves. And as a Trans (kid) Activist with "Mermaids," she encourages and even insists on the same thing for other children.

I totally get that these are not nice things to say. But even worse, they are not nice things to do to anyone's child. It is child abuse. Would it be different if Farrow had simply said that the child was castrated and rendered sterile as a child without directly noting the authority of the parent in doing so? Just pretend like Mom didn't make that decision for her child? The end result is the same; it just gives Mom a clear conscience.

In either event, there is no good reason to criminally prosecute/persecute anyone for words. Especially true words.

We only have Farrows version of what she,was told by police, and since she apparently can't even remember accusing someone of mutilating a child I would treat her version with extreme scepticism.

You and Farrow are of course entitled to your own opinions. However the law says differently.

When you accuse a specific person of abusing a child on a public forum then it would be extremely remiss of the police not to investigate.

Based on the tweet I have seen then there doesn't seem sufficient grounds for a prosecution, however I understand this was an ongoing Twitter conversation so there may be more. Again it is entirely appropriate for the police to investigate.

Worth also noting that the bar for civil action for libel is much lower than that for criminal.

Finally, and this is the important part, it shows that the whole premise of reporting of this matter in the press and this thread is completely misplaced as she is not being investigated for using the wrong pronoun.

People have unquestioningly accepted her version despite how ludicrous it sounds and despite the fact she claims bit to actually remember what she said.

Total fake outrage bait.

Also jail time for 'deliberately' not using the desired pronoun is a nothingburger, but depending on what the judge determines during a trial, there could be a fine. That's all folks.

The bigger issue is how some people are just unwilling to accept gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, which it is in the U.K. And some people's unwillingness to accept others' reassignment can also be looked at as harassment and discrimination. The law is the law, and the morals of the majority of people within a society steer the lawmakers to update old and make new laws as warranted.

How you can be discriminated against:

Discrimination can come in one of the following forms:

direct discrimination - treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others

indirect discrimination - putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage

harassment - unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone’s dignity or creates an offensive environment for them

victimisation - treating someone unfairly because they’ve complained about discrimination or harassment

www.gov.uk...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

We only have Farrows version of what she was told by police...

Indeed. Why is that? Farrow has no control over what the police do or do not say. Farrow isn't the one hiding behind a veil of darkness.

...and since she apparently can't even remember accusing someone of mutilating a child I would treat her version with extreme scepticism.

Hmmm... perspective is quite the bitch, eh? I would say that she apparently cannot read minds and could respond only to what she had been told.

You and Farrow are of course entitled to your own opinions. However the law says differently.

Opinions? About what? Mutilation? Are you kidding me??? By DEFINITION, surgical castration and reconstruction is mutilation!!! Is it child abuse? It's absolutely chilling to me that anyone can believe that mutilating a child's body for any reason EXCEPT medical necessity is NOT child abuse.

When you accuse a specific person of abusing a child on a public forum then it would be extremely remiss of the police not to investigate.

Investigate what exactly? The words were said. No one is denying it. The issue is whether it should be a prosecutable offense.... whether someone should go to jail for words.

Based on the tweet I have seen then there doesn't seem sufficient grounds for a prosecution, however I understand this was an ongoing Twitter conversation so there may be more. Again it is entirely appropriate for the police to investigate.

Differences of opinion expressed freely should not be grounds for any prosecution.

Finally, and this is the important part, it shows that the whole premise of reporting of this matter in the press and this thread is completely misplaced as she is not being investigated for using the wrong pronoun.

No, it shows how unfair and ridiculous this thought/speech policing is, when the authorities will not even clearly state the supposed crime -- but are quite happy to make vague accusations. Farrow was very clear and forthright in her words. The authorities should be holding themselves to an even higher standard.

People have unquestioningly accepted her version despite how ludicrous it sounds and despite the fact she claims bit to actually remember what she said.

Again, Farrow has been very direct and open about her knowledge and understanding of the situation. She's not the one hiding behind cover of darkness... much less trying to silence anyone, nor the truth.

What is not disputed in any way is that "misgendering" is in fact and in deed a prosecutable offense; that an official complaint was lodged against Farrow by Green for words; that the police are/were investigating Farrow for officially unspecified "crimes; and that police had contacted Farrow for a police interview in pursuit of these charges.

Total fake outrage bait.

Indeed. So much faux outrage about a woman expressing an opinion... but no outrage about the tyranny and abuse of power by authorities.

a reply to: InTheLight

The bigger issue is how some people are just unwilling to accept gender reassignment as a protected characteristic, which it is in the U.K..

Not exactly. We understand and accept that the law is being used to "protect" gender reassignment; we just refuse to accept it as necessary or appropriate as currently implemented.

... And some people's unwillingness to accept others' reassignment can also be looked at as harassment and discrimination.

Again, we have no problem understanding and accepting that it is happening; but we refuse to accept it as necessary or appropriate as currently implemented.

The law is the law, and the morals of the majority of people within a society steer the lawmakers to update old and make new laws as warranted.

Yup. Laws are not written in stone. Laws are written by people and people are fallible and therefore so are the laws they write.

But let's hope that you're right about the morals of the majority of the people. Now that such laws and regulations and abuses of power and authority are actually seeing the light of day for the whole world to see, there is hope for change.