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

[chipwich]

You have a perfect right to say that and hold that view, as wrong as it is.  But your employer is also allowed to tell you to respect a person's gender self identification.

Would an employer be allowed to tell somebody to not respect a person's gender self identification?

Probably not. Employers are only permitted to make lawful directions and so a direction to violate a human rights code provision would be highly problematic.

Hey Shelf, you say this is an edge case of Employment Law, Crazy Canuck says it is an unlawful violation of a "Human rights code." Which is it?

[Sheilbh]

How do you know you aren't saying something right now that a judge might declare, apparently on a whim, is unworthy of democratic respect?

Well I look at the judge's analysis and it doesn't seem very likely.

In any event if I'm fired for my Languish activites I will have bigger problems and am unlikely to claim it's part of my philosophical belief - though I think I'd fail far more on the cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance point.

Hey Shelf, you say this is an edge case of Employment Law, Crazy Canuck says it is an unlawful violation of a "Human rights code." Which is it?

CC's talking about what if an employer directs their staff to misgender people. I have no idea what sort of case that would be - I mean it would fundamentally still be employment law though.

But you can see the way the two work together in UK law in the judgment. So you've got a discrimination claim based on her philosophical belief which is a protected category.

But the Human Rights Act provides that, if possible UK statute law must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the European Convention of Human Rights. This isn't absolute because Parliament and judges in the UK can't overrule an Act of Parliament, so they have lots of interpretative tools and remedies but if an Act of Parliament is impossible to interprent compatibly with the ECHR then they can't overturn it they can issue a Declaration of Incompatibility. Normally the government issues a regulation "fixing" the flaw - I think it's based on the New Zealand system.

So in understanding what is meant by a "philisophical belief" you have the sort of common law interpretation (those five test) but you've also got to consider Articles on freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression. Both of those are not absolute freedoms. Luckily the two work together because the European Court of Human Rights has largely adopted the UK court's tests for a "philosophical belief" as quite helpful.

But you also have to consider the human rights of trans people, because their status is also a protected category - so that kicks in with the right to respect for privacy and family life (I actually know a bit about this one ).

In the UK because of that requirement to interpret statute in a way that's compatible with the ECHR, human rights is sort of an overlay on top of everything. In this case it's directly relevant because it's about the rights of two groups of people and a philosophical belief.

I have no experience or knowledge of this from my work, but I'd imagine if you were bringing a case for an individual and it involved statute you would probably shove in a human rights element too, but I think judges tend to deal with them fairly quickly unless it is exactly the point they decide the case on.

[Solmyr]

While "let's just ignore gender" is occasionally offered as a solution, it's really not a good one. Many people actually do want to have a gender (including "other") as part of their identity, it just may not be the same gender as they were assigned at birth. To ignore it is basically the same argument as "I don't see race" - sure, but that's not how the world works.

That they want their own special thing does not sound like a proper argument for me.

Fighting to make sure a born male doesn't get discriminated just because he wears what is considered women's clothing/hairstyle/mannerism is perfectly worthwhile.

Fighting to make sure we have properly defined drawers and division lines in society to accommodate everyone's personal wishes is not worthwhile, and in fact counterproductive, and divisive.

It's not divisive unless someone forces it to become divisive in their eyes. I am not in any way negatively affected by someone else's gender identity, it does not make me their opponent in some kind of division.

[Tamas]

While "let's just ignore gender" is occasionally offered as a solution, it's really not a good one. Many people actually do want to have a gender (including "other") as part of their identity, it just may not be the same gender as they were assigned at birth. To ignore it is basically the same argument as "I don't see race" - sure, but that's not how the world works.

That they want their own special thing does not sound like a proper argument for me.

Fighting to make sure a born male doesn't get discriminated just because he wears what is considered women's clothing/hairstyle/mannerism is perfectly worthwhile.

Fighting to make sure we have properly defined drawers and division lines in society to accommodate everyone's personal wishes is not worthwhile, and in fact counterproductive, and divisive.

It's not divisive unless someone forces it to become divisive in their eyes. I am not in any way negatively affected by someone else's gender identity, it does not make me their opponent in some kind of division.

Fine, but if you make gender distinction matter, you are putting a limit on equality. If a guy cannot look and act like what people used to associate with a lady  without having to switch genders, that's pretty far from equality between genders. Same goes for the other way around, obviously.

And if somebody insists that there should be gender categories for certain defined patterns of behaviour, then they are creating division, not removing them.

[Solmyr]

While "let's just ignore gender" is occasionally offered as a solution, it's really not a good one. Many people actually do want to have a gender (including "other") as part of their identity, it just may not be the same gender as they were assigned at birth. To ignore it is basically the same argument as "I don't see race" - sure, but that's not how the world works.

That they want their own special thing does not sound like a proper argument for me.

Fighting to make sure a born male doesn't get discriminated just because he wears what is considered women's clothing/hairstyle/mannerism is perfectly worthwhile.

Fighting to make sure we have properly defined drawers and division lines in society to accommodate everyone's personal wishes is not worthwhile, and in fact counterproductive, and divisive.

It's not divisive unless someone forces it to become divisive in their eyes. I am not in any way negatively affected by someone else's gender identity, it does not make me their opponent in some kind of division.

Fine, but if you make gender distinction matter, you are putting a limit on equality. If a guy cannot look and act like what people used to associate with a lady  without having to switch genders, that's pretty far from equality between genders. Same goes for the other way around, obviously.

And if somebody insists that there should be gender categories for certain defined patterns of behaviour, then they are creating division, not removing them.

You seem to be misunderstanding how choosing your own gender identity works. A guy is free to look and act like anything he wants while also identifying as a guy, or identifying as a woman/queer/other gender. It's his choice, nobody is drawing any lines on which behaviour or clothing is confined to which genders. The whole point is that there are no such defined boundaries.

[Tamas]

But if there were no boundaries, and people did not associate values to them, they would not want to switch genders.

[Solmyr]

But if there were no boundaries, and people did not associate values to them, they would not want to switch genders.

As I said, a gender might be part of someone's identity, so they want to have a particular one. It's not just how you dress, there are many other factors.

[Tamas]

So it's a premade category to define a person? What if no existing gender defines a particular person? We create a new one just for them? Wouldn't it be a nobler aim to remove such categories altogether?

[Josquius]

No.

Fine, fine.  French Nazi.  How about "my friend, the transgender person."

Person is always feminine. Friend is where you need to pick one or you go masculine & a disclaimer.

French does have the ongoing issue of needing to create new words for gender equal job roles though right?
A feminine version of executioner et al.
I'd imagine there's a lot of scope for misgendering douche baggery there?

[Grey Fox]

No.

Fine, fine.  French Nazi.  How about "my friend, the transgender person."

Person is always feminine. Friend is where you need to pick one or you go masculine & a disclaimer.

French does have the ongoing issue of needing to create new words for gender equal job roles though right?
A feminine version of executioner et al.
I'd imagine there's a lot of scope for misgendering douche baggery there?

The French are idiots & refuse to do it on many of them.
In Quebec, we create the words. No big deal.

[DGuller]

The more debates about sex and gender I listen to, the more I wonder about the possibility that the whole concept was introduced by Russian trolls to make SJW types jump the shark and discredit all of liberals.

[Josquius]

The French are idiots & refuse to do it on many of them.
In Quebec, we create the words. No big deal.

My point is it seems harder to avoid gendering if an executioner must be a borreau or borretress (or whatever it is).
If you've a trans person in a job that was traditionally the domain of their birth gender it opens up a lot of opportunities for misgendering.

The more debates about sex and gender I listen to, the more I wonder about the possibility that the whole concept was introduced by Russian trolls to make SJW types jump the shark and discredit all of liberals.

It's funny as I get the opposite impression. It's the rabid keyboard warrior edge lords doing a lot of work to go full nazi and discredit all Conservatives.

But then that's the way Russia works. Its not about one side winning its about deepening hate.

[DGuller]

Both could be true.  The point is to deepen the divide to the point that no flaw of your side would ever make you consider doing anything that would in any way aid the other side.  I can see how it would be tempting for a conservative to perform as much mental gymnastics as necessary to not see anything fatally wrong with Trump, when the alternative is to put people in power who will earnestly believe in any insane raving if it goes viral enough.

[Grey Fox]

The French are idiots & refuse to do it on many of them.
In Quebec, we create the words. No big deal.

My point is it seems harder to avoid gendering if an executioner must be a borreau or borretress (or whatever it is).
If you've a trans person in a job that was traditionally the domain of their birth gender it opens up a lot of opportunities for misgendering.

I think I understand now what you mean by gendering.

When every word has a gender, errors are going to happen & corrections are made. Un avion or une avion is a frequent topic of discussion.

A transgender woman being call un infirmier (nurse) instead of une infirmière will elicit, in my opinion, a correction not outrage.

[Tamas]

Both could be true.  The point is to deepen the divide to the point that no flaw of your side would ever make you consider doing anything that would in any way aid the other side.  I can see how it would be tempting for a conservative to perform as much mental gymnastics as necessary to not see anything fatally wrong with Trump, when the alternative is to put people in power who will earnestly believe in any insane raving if it goes viral enough.

It is very counterproductive to blame everything on Russian trolls.

It wasn't Russian trolls who introduced silly shit like this throughout history, like iconoclasts vs. the other dudes, the debate and killing over the exact nature of Christ, etc. It's who we are.