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

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Boadicea

Its funny how there can be total denial in the face of hard facts. But as we saw in that other thread that was binned there seems to be an agenda in shutting down discussion.

Well, it not on my agenda to shut down discussion.

a reply to: InTheLight

Hence the need for huge grants from the taxpayer or lotteries in this instance.

Push your agenda on under age kids

Normalize it with "re-education"

Doctors and Pharma making huge bucks

Never mind about informed consent - WHEN THAT INFORMED CONSENT IS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE MINOR BY THE PARENT

a reply to: InTheLight

Aren't you free to walk away from this issue for you personally?

Nope. Not when laws and regulations are being implemented that affect me, such as the Equality Act.

Not when taxpayer dollars are being used to implement the agenda.

Not when kids are being harmed and permanently mutilated and sterilized by adults responsible for protecting them.

And certainly not when my own friends and family in the L, G and B communities are being harmed by the T.

Can you go to jail for ‘misgendering’?

Not if you're armed, and practice strength in numbers.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: InTheLight

Hence the need for huge grants from the taxpayer or lotteries in this instance.

Push your agenda on under age kids

Normalize it with "re-education"

Doctors and Pharma making huge bucks

Never mind about informed consent - WHEN THAT INFORMED CONSENT IS TAKEN AWAY FROM THE MINOR BY THE PARENT

If the majority of people's morals are making this into a law to protect trans people, then it's not my agenda, it is a society's agenda.

This is a personal and moral issue for the people involved and this how just one of the doctors doing these surgeries explains his mission.

Dr. Brassard devotes the majority of his practice to the well-being of transgender and gender non-conforming people.

Keyword: Well-being.

Also, pharmas getting rich on this type of surgery?, that's rich, when have they never been at the top of the $ heap?

All the SCIENCE DENYING hypocrites raise your hand

Sex and gender is not just based on external body parts or appearance. Read up on chromosomes, you SCIENCE DENIERS

a reply to: InTheLight

We normally treat folks with mental illness using a range of traditionally effective methods.

Embracing their delusions and self-lies is not usually the case. Those doing this will go down in history on the same page as Doctors committing lobotomies and electroshock therapy. And hopefully followed by hundreds of criminal prosecutions, for crimes against nature if nothing else.

SCIENCE DENIERS for you...

originally posted by: Boadicea

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.

Since it is Farrow who went running to the media its her version of events that where published. Do you expect the police to give a press confrence every time they do an investigation?

Apparently her recollection is so bad she can't remember accusing someone of child abuse... if you think that is being direct and open I have a lovely second hand bridge for sale.

Accusing someone of child abuse isn't an opinion its an accusation. You and her are, as I said, entitled to your opinion, in this case the law firmly disagrees.

However if you are going to start accusing specific individuals of child abuse on a public forum then yes,the police absolutely will take an interest if a complaint is made.

And no misgendering isn't an offence.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: InTheLight

We normally treat folks with mental illness using a range of traditionally effective methods.

Embracing their delusions and self-lies is not usually the case. Those doing this will go down in history on the same page as Doctors committing lobotomies and electroshock therapy. And hopefully followed by hundreds of criminal prosecutions, for crimes against nature if nothing else.

SCIENCE DENIERS for you...

Well then the doctors, politicians, lawmakers and majority of society must also be your type of science denier.

The Brits are a bunch of sissies now.

Once upon a time, they traveled across the Atlantic just to enforce taxes on Colonists. Now, they can't even walk down street without being offended by some fake outrage addiction.

People want to go backwards with social evolution, that's on them. But don't except the whole world to conform to a fraction of the minority.

originally posted by: InTheLight
Actually, if the person has had reassignment surgery...

"If" is the operative word here, and that's a mighty big "if", because nothing compels anyone to have sexual reconstruction surgery, with up to 90% of all trans identifying men reported as choosing NOT to have sexual reconstruction surgery, and if Trans Activists get their demands for self-ID -- "Acceptance without exception" -- then we will have absolutely no way of knowing if the person had surgery at all.

...and is keeping up with therapy, then technically they would not be considered as men.

No. They would not be considered men legally under the law, but by every other measure, yes, they are men.

However, given the high cost of aftercare therapy, it only stands to reason that if the transwoman cannot maintain therapy, then that would be a main consideration in how to deal with these types of situations.

That is an additional consideration.

a reply to: InTheLight

There is a big difference between having an intelligent, nondiscriminatory discussion and what is going on online from some people harassing trans people by not accepting their choices in life (with the law on their side).

The topic is going to gaol for misgendering - the woman ( Green ) removed her complaint.

The woman is a journalist

Was the boy a boy before the operation?

Was the boy a minor and couldn't give informed consent

Did the mother take it upon herself to act and change the sex of the child

Was the journalist truthful i reporting the sex of the child prior to the Op?

When you answer these simple questions we can move on

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: InTheLight
Actually, if the person has had reassignment surgery...

"If" is the operative word here, and that's a mighty big "if", because nothing compels anyone to have sexual reconstruction surgery, with up to 90% of all trans identifying men reported as choosing NOT to have sexual reconstruction surgery, and if Trans Activists get their demands for self-ID -- "Acceptance without exception" -- then we will have absolutely no way of knowing if the person had surgery at all.

...and is keeping up with therapy, then technically they would not be considered as men.

No. They would not be considered men legally under the law, but by every other measure, yes, they are men.

However, given the high cost of aftercare therapy, it only stands to reason that if the transwoman cannot maintain therapy, then that would be a main consideration in how to deal with these types of situations.

That is an additional consideration.

Do you have any sources to back up your opinions?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: InTheLight

There is a big difference between having an intelligent, nondiscriminatory discussion and what is going on online from some people harassing trans people by not accepting their choices in life (with the law on their side).

The topic is going to gaol for misgendering - the woman ( Green ) removed her complaint.

The woman is a journalist

Was the boy a boy before the operation?

Was the boy a minor and couldn't give informed consent

Did the mother take it upon herself to act and change the sex of the child

Was the journalist truthful i reporting the sex of the child prior to the Op?

When you answer these simple questions we can move on

I don't have to move on, but you do.

a reply to: InTheLight

If the majority of people's morals are making this into a law to protect trans people, then it's not my agenda, it is a society's agenda.

But it's not the majority of people, nor their morals, pushing these laws.

Quite the contrary, much effort has been made to make sure the majority have no idea!

a reply to: InTheLight

hahaha - figures. Duck and weave. Your own words or lack thereof speak to an agenda.

Use the force of law to silence dissent for a social engineering experiment with grave consequences.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: InTheLight

If the majority of people's morals are making this into a law to protect trans people, then it's not my agenda, it is a society's agenda.

But it's not the majority of people, nor their morals, pushing these laws.

Quite the contrary, much effort has been made to make sure the majority have no idea!

All one (and any majority) has to do to find out what's going on with new law discussions is to google it. I do it all the time while also listening to my parliamentary procedures and shenanigans (lol) on TV. If someone feel so strongly on certain issues, why would this person not keep informed?

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: InTheLight

hahaha - figures. Duck and weave. Your own words or lack thereof speak to an agenda.

Use the force of law to silence dissent for a social engineering experiment with grave consequences.

The force of law is the majority of society speaking to you. Do you not have the right to protest?

a reply to: ScepticScot

However if you are going to start accusing specific individuals of child abuse on a public forum then...

No "if" about it. I must not have made myself clear, so let me do so now, on this very public forum:

Chemically and/or surgically castrating a child is child abuse.

Giving drugs to children with known permanent debilitating effects off-label without proper study and approval is child abuse.

Giving drugs to children with known and unknown debilitating side effects and adverse outcomes is child abuse.

Willfully and unnecessarily harming and mutilating a child is child abuse.

yes,the police absolutely will take an interest if a complaint is made.

Hmmm... I guess I should put the tea kettle on for my soon-to-be visitors, eh?

Can you go to jail for ‘misgendering’?

Someone gets sent to jail for stating a biological fact is stupid.

Stupid= gender neutral.