Freedom of Expression in Academia and Employment - formerly the Trans Issues.

[Tamas]

The societal/opinion pressure on this in the UK has already caused a lot of grief to teenagers, as -according to a Guardian article- most therapists are keen to push any teenagers with doubts about their true gender to gender-change medications, as to avoid being labelled intolerant, if they want to discuss the issue with the kid.

There are a lot of steps that need to be taken before any medications are prescribed almost anywhere but especially the UK.  Numerous tiers of meetings with psychologists, meeting with doctors, and more.  This is after making one's way through the incredibly long wait list that exists to even start the process.  Nothing is being "pushed" on people.  The grief for trans teens is often the hurdles they face and hoops they must jump through to obtain the help they need and seek.  That help may upset TERFs and family, but the person whose opinion should matter the most is the individual seeking help.  Also, teens are given puberty blockers which aren't "gender-change medication", but simply delay the onset of their assigned at birth puberty.  They can cease to be taken and the normal puberty of the person's assigned at birth gender will occur.  It allows for people to have more time to decide what the right course of action is for them without the dramatic changes that puberty brings to the body.

Yeah, I'm surprised to hear this from Tamas. I can't imagine that anyone with any experience with the NHS would make a remark that doctors are able to push medications willy nilly at patients.

I read a Guardian article. The same Guardian that has covered in two or three very sympathetic articles the "man" who gave birth in the UK. He was born a she, got help to become a he, then decided he still wanted to be a he but he also wanted a kid so he stopped with the medications so he could be a bit of a she and got pregnant, got artificially inseminated, gave birth, and now a he-he again.

So the same magazine that is totally supportive of such a clear case of insanity, had an article on how a lot of psychologists are remorseful about pushing teens toward hormone medication without properly talking it through with them first, due to fear of being labelled a bigot.

Sorry for taking the article at face value.

[Sophie Scholl]

...or a trans man wanted to have a child, realized current medical technology hasn't reached a point where he can do so as a man and instead had to do so as his sex assigned at birth.  He stopped taking Testosterone to allow his body to better give birth, and then resumed the medication that aids him to better access and present his gender identity.  There is no insanity involved but there is some nastiness in declaring it as such because you don't understand it, "man".

[Grey Fox]

I am not please with my name being associated with this - it is very much NOT AT ALL what I was talking about.

Maybe it's not you but a Asian Eagle?

[Sophie Scholl]

I am not please with my name being associated with this - it is very much NOT AT ALL what I was talking about.

I was curious what "you were talking about" to produce this topic but couldn't find anything.  Care to elaborate on what happened/your opinion?

[crazy canuck]

Berkut has always been a spirited defender of freedom of expression.  This case has nothing to do with that issue.  In fact the Tribunal found that if her expressive rights have been in question she would have had a case.

[The Minsky Moment]

The UK law does permit cases to proceed on the basis of "philosophical belief" - but only if "worthy of respect in a democratic society . . ." etc. So the UK legal regime inevitably involves the state making value judgments about philosophical principles. 

[The Brain]

Well Britain isn't exactly known for its liberties.

[crazy canuck]

The UK law does permit cases to proceed on the basis of "philosophical belief" - but only if "worthy of respect in a democratic society . . ." etc. So the UK legal regime inevitably involves the state making value judgments about philosophical principles.

The tribunal was saying nothing more than one cannot found a discrimination complaint on an employer being concerned the employee would not comply with the law - she expressly said she would not. 

[chipwich]

The UK law does permit cases to proceed on the basis of "philosophical belief" - but only if "worthy of respect in a democratic society . . ." etc. So the UK legal regime inevitably involves the state making value judgments about philosophical principles.

The tribunal was saying nothing more than one cannot found a discrimination complaint on an employer being concerned the employee would not comply with the law - she expressly said she would not.

The tribunal said more than that you dirty liar.

[Sheilbh]

The UK law does permit cases to proceed on the basis of "philosophical belief" - but only if "worthy of respect in a democratic society . . ." etc. So the UK legal regime inevitably involves the state making value judgments about philosophical principles.

Yeah. It's one of the criteria of whether or not something is treated as a philosophical belief (which can be a protected category) or not.

It's not easy but the Equalities Act basically tries to protect religion, or absence of religion as protected categories as well as other philosophical beliefs on an equal basis for the purposes of certain legislation. But that gets into the tricky territory of what is a philosophical belief that protects, say, Humanists but not Jedi or philosophical racists.

So the court's answer at the minute is: the belief must be genuinely held; it must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

[Tamas]

...or a trans man wanted to have a child, realized current medical technology hasn't reached a point where he can do so as a man and instead had to do so as his sex assigned at birth.  He stopped taking Testosterone to allow his body to better give birth, and then resumed the medication that aids him to better access and present his gender identity.  There is no insanity involved but there is some nastiness in declaring it as such because you don't understand it, "man".

I guess my mistake came from having obsolete assumptions on the ability of bearing a child being strictly in the domain of female identity, and therefore I could not understand how a male would both be wanting to be a male AND utilise the womb he was born with but not before he turned from a she to he AND be considered mentally sound.

My bad.

[chipwich]

So the court's answer at the minute is: the belief must be genuinely held; it must be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available; it must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; it must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance; and it must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not be incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

What is the court's standards against which these value judgments are to be held? Does the court also have the power to determine what is unworthy of respect in a non-democratic society.

[The Minsky Moment]

The US regime avoids certain problems by being formally value neutral but at the cost having to deal with recognition problems like "what is a religion" - thus Scientology or Moonies can count but not Neoplatonists, Kantians, or Objectivists.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't understand the difference between a belief and an opinion.

Is there such a thing as a philosophy that doesn't conflict with a fundamental right of someone, somewhere?

I understand how hard it is to adjudicate all human interaction but that code is a horror show.

[dps]

Berkut has always been a spirited defender of freedom of expression.  This case has nothing to do with that issue.  In fact the Tribunal found that if her expressive rights have been in question she would have had a case.

I've also always been very pro-free speech, and now that the court's ruling has been explained to me I would say that wouldn't have been a freedom of speech case even in the U.S.--the First Amendment protects against government action, not the actions of private employers.