Social Media Trouble Once More ….

Here’s an interesting article – you know the rub, I’m sure? When is a woman not a woman, is a woman, not, is! not! etc, etc …

https://thepostmillennial.com/woman-fired-by-restaurant-after-posting-support-for-jk-rowling-on-facebook

Woman fired by restaurant after posting support for JK Rowling on Facebook

Right, Wrong, Plain Nuts?

Thoughts?

Ark


178 thoughts on “Social Media Trouble Once More ….

  1. Real people in real life being harmed by those who enable this intolerance.

    To my way of thinking there is no moral and/or ethical difference between those Republicans who have enabled Trump to private citizens who enable and spread this malicious ideology… in places like social media, education, and at work… and now being reflected in government. It is totalitarian creep gussied up to sound life this is okay, that it is meant to be nice, and we’re living through it. But what are we really doing about it?

    Well, it is refreshing to have you post this to expose just how common yet deplorable are the real world actions by, and consequences of, those who are willing to put the ideology into practice, who go along with, excuse, tolerate and defend it. Even worse, those who stay silent and exercise self censorship to avoid accusations like being racist or, in this case, anti-trans. The intolerance of dissent shown here yet common everywhere is as pernicious and malignant as the most fundamental and restrictive religion can be and I am truly shocked at how many non believers don’t see this faith-based belief in the ideology unfolding right before their eyes.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. This is wrong on so many levels starting that, as Dawkins would say, it’s not even wrong. In this particular case, it with the facts that JK Rowling uses being rejected in favour of transactivists’ alternate facts and having useful enablers like the restaurant’s owner acting as an agent of the Inquisition and doing its dirty work for them. This is beyond the pale.

        Yet it DOES go far beyond this in the sense that everything this group based ideology touches (to be justified) requires a level of belief by those who do not reject it in its entirety that is perfectly matched to exercising a religious faith. And we see the same kind of deplorable accommodationism, the old “I’m an atheist, but…” complaints and criticisms leveled against the VICTIMS!

        In other words, to fire this worker is equivalent to firing someone for blasphemy, for firing a person for not believing… even by someone who doesn’t necessarily agree with the ideology, with the religious belief. They STILL act as judge and jury on behalf of the Woke extremists like transactivists are. I would think non believers in particular who have suffered the slings ands arrows of the same kind of moral and ethical vilification for not going along to get along should be up in arms over every aspect of this religious belief making its way into people’s lives. It is just as pernicious, just as revolting, just as poisonous in its entirety as the worst religious belief. And the facts that back this claim up go as far beyond opinion as the facts that indicate anthropogenic climate change. In other words, it’s not a belief open to debate but a position of knowledge and understanding. That’s why this action is so wrong that it isn’t even wrong.

        Liked by 4 people

  2. Sometimes we have to consider just the kind of public world we live in, no matter how we feel or what our private opinions are. I don’t say she was right or wrong, foolish or brave, but perhaps if she had kept her opinions to herself (or at the very least away from public media) there would not be this hoohah about it.
    easy to forget just how public and “out there” we all are, especially on Facebook and Twitter.

    I also do not understand why there should even BE a fuss. She made a comment, and now people are throwing their hands in the air, pointing fingers, and shouting.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Once upon a time JK Rowling’s views may have made Page 2 of the national newspapers. It is still her opinion.

      As we live in a world where Social Media Rules (barf) the ”headline” ( this woman and her T-shirt) make world ”headlines” in an instant and thus attract a bizillion more opinions, and opinions matter when it comes to certain issues – apparently.

      I was tempted to write a different sort of post and see if WordPress gave me a hard time!
      At least noone can ”fire me” … well, maybe my missus if she gangs up on me with the rest of the crew!

      People will draw/ have drawn a number of comparisons / correlations to other social issues but perhaps each one needs to be … and I use this word judiciously …. judged (no pun intended) on its merits?

      This is where Tildeb reads my comment and delivers a 1000 word rebuttal on why I should probably be pilloried or something

      Eeek!!!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Your fear of reprisal by any social media platform is justified. And that tells you something important right there, doesn’t it? We are fighting a new religion, I tell you. So the same rules apply.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Are you suggesting WordPress would have my ‘guts for garters’ (as the saying goes) if I were to put up a post similar to this woman’s and come out in support of Rowling?

          Like

          1. Jane Clare Jones is pretty active on this issue and I think her blog is on WordPress. I’ve written one post about it (more than a year ago) and linked to other posts about it in my weekly link round-ups, and I haven’t heard anything from Blogger about it. I think blogging platforms realize they need to be as content-neutral as possible or they’ll be abandoned en masse by users — as Tumblr was when they violated that principle.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Not necessarily and not necessarily now.

            But don’t forget about the legions of virtue signallers bent on doing their part as offence archeologists in order to attack the character of someone who might raise a very good argument in some public domain against this New Religion. And you, my dear Ark, often fit that bill of raising a good counter argument using – gasp! – facts when it comes to counter-factual religious claims so you are vulnerable if you were to write something here that undermined your virtue to go along to get along in the eyes of the New Religion’s Thought Police like these transactivists who tolerate no dissent. Such character assassination happens all the time now, so WP can be used this way. When WP is held accountable by these minions of malice for allowing you to exercise your free speech by categorizing it as, well, take your pick of some highly negative term, only then will censorship descend by policy… to ‘protect’ free speech, of course (that’s why yours – like JK Rowling’s – will be reclassified as racist or hate speech or bigotry or intolerance or whatever it isn’t because, hey, we already know when it comes to religious belief that facts simply don’t matter).

            Liked by 1 person

  3. This shows why anonymity on the internet is a must. Employers will always fire someone rather than resist pressure from online mobs — they just don’t want the hassle — and some employers would do it anyway just to avoid controversy. How many people would dare even declare themselves atheists on the internet if they knew their boss would find out about it?

    As for this specific case, a lot of the Western world is going through a period of hysteria about this “trans” thing every bit as bad as reefer madness or McCarthyism or the Satanic panic of the 1980s. You can now be fired and denounced and subject to death threats for saying the biological equivalent of 2+2=4. It will pass, as those other crazes did, but like them, it will destroy a lot of lives before it does.

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Ark, when I first read the headline and breezed over the next several sentences, I thought “Here we go again with a U.S. state and employer that resides in an At-Will labor laws state—can legally terminate an employee for absolutely no reason at all or for the most outrageously ridiculous reason(s).” I was shocked to read this was in Ontario, Canada! 😳

    As I’ve generally stated before on this subject of gender-identity, transgender issues, etc, way way too many (conservative, naïve?) people have sharp, knee-jerk reflexive reactions to this social/biological controversy and confusion. My general rule on this hot volatile topic is “Listen twice, speak once.” And if unsure of what to speak, keep quiet and listen/learn more! Often I am silent, but that does not mean I am indifferent in the least to people such as Vanessa Vokey when treated horribly wrong, especially when her personal life and beliefs have nothing to do with her job performance! 😠

    P.S. On a totally different subject Ark, how about that phenomenal stoppage time goal in the 94th minute by Manuel Lanzini of West Ham!!!??? Holy SMOKES what a gorgeous cracker of a goal, huh!? 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The goal was amazing. A true show stopper and contender of Goal of the Season.
      I have a boyhood friend in Oz who left the UK years ago and he is a life long Hammers fan so I side with him – unless they play Liverpool of course!

      But it is all a bit low key on the Football Front at the Ark’s at the moment now that Van Dyk is set to have knee surgery. I hope to the gods this is not a career defining/wrecking injury.
      And it looks as if Pickford will walk away scott free, Utterly disgusting.
      And the VAR bloke Cout should be removed and not be allowed to ‘ref’ again.

      Terrible all round.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oh NO!!! I did not know about Van Dyk’s surgery! That is crushing news. I’m so sorry Ark. 😔 Is it season-ending surgery? Ugh, you are so right that knee-injuries (ACL’s & MCL’s) often are the sharp turning-points in an otherwise stellar career… that could’ve been. 😢

        Mane’s offside vs. Everton? Couldn’t agree with you more on Cout (VAR). What tha effin HELL referees!? Was his fingernail offsides Ark? Seriously… this hyper-technology constantly stopping the football game is getting WAY the hell out of hand!!! I mean, it’s frustrating enough over here in U.S. sports that “video reviewing” is killing the flow and excitement of games—but it damn sure benefits the corporate advertisers and their profit margins. 🤬

        Like

        1. I can get over the dissallowed goal. Hell, if Maradona … no best not go there.
          I just hope this is not career ending, and as a former player you know what I am talking about.
          That Pickford will walk form this without even a smacked wrist is disgusting.
          Once such action is ignored/glossed over by authorities then there is the tacit admission from players that …”Phew, we go away with this boys.”
          He should NEVER be allowed to pull on an England jersey ever again for that tackle.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Oh no, I wasn’t able to watch the game live—still haven’t watched my recording of it. So I take it that Pickford caused Van Dijk’s injury?

            Just pulled up the news and images of Pickford/Van Dijk. Wow! It doesn’t appear to me that Pickford was intentionally doing a 1982 WC Wrecking-ball Shumacker-Battiston Clean-house hit. However, Pickford was definitely reckless and deserved at least a yellow!

            So Ark, offsides now trumps possible homicides and assault in the Premiere League? 😨

            Like

          2. Intent is not the issue. Reckless/dangerous play most certainly is.
            An airborne scissor tackle, both feet off the ground which caused a knee extension resulting in a possible ACL injury and now surgery?
            That was worth a straight red. It was descrbed as a horror tackle and trust me , every one who witnessed it winced.
            VAR is an excellent addition. It’s application is farcical.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Yes, you’ve put it succinctly and correct. No argument here on a straight red. VAR is indeed a positive assistant for referees and Federations/Leagues to assess egregious behavior. Its implementation beyond those parameters during a game is indeed farcical. Agreed there. They better get it spot on soon, otherwise the Leagues, Federations, FIFA, etc, will lose fans and their money to other sports.

            Liked by 1 person

        1. Or a royal can become a commoner.

          “It said on the BBC news today that the Sussexes have now fully transitioned from royalty to the commoners they had started to identify as. Their preferred pronouns are no longer “his royal highness” & “her royal highness”. They might de-transition one day though, pronouns & all.”

          Sometimes, provenance = essence.

          Like

          1. Royals becoming commoners would be believable. A person can be stripped of their royal titles and all. But to wake up and say you are a woman because you think so, is a joke

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Hello, John!
            Surprised, yet quite pleased to see you back here.
            After the last visit I wasn’t sure you would return. Would you like me to ask all my other visitors to hide their ‘lynching ropes’ or do you feel comfortable enough you can navigate on your own?


            🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          1. From the aticle …

            ”Tony maintains that his pastime remains an entirely innocent hobby despite the sexual overtones”

            Yeah , right!
            The phrase: ”On all fours … bitch” comes to mind for some reason.

            Like

  5. The Barbara Kay article you link to seems to be deliberately provocative. It first conflates biological sex and gender without even attempting to understand the distinctions between them. Then it glosses over the debate surrounding J.K. Rowling’s views, which are only of interest because she is a famous writer and not because of any expertise. And then it uses as clickbait the concept of ‘cancel culture’ over a woman who lost her job because of the views she expressed on Facebook. Choose your favourite controversy! I don’t want to get sucked in to any of these based on a poorly researched article.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. I agree. However, by now everyone should know that Facebook is a terrible place to express a controversial opinion. She deliberately made her posts public, which means she must have been aware there would be a response.

        I wonder if her contract of employment restricted her from such public statements. If so, then she would have to have been aware of the risks. If not, then the debate is about a company’s reputation being put at risk by employee’s social media.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. She deliberately made her posts public, which means she must have been aware there would be a response.

          = She deliberately went out in public in that short skirt, which means she must have been aware that she might have gotten raped. It was her own damn fault.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Exactly. Now where have I come across the blame-the-victim tactic before? Hmmm….

            Here in Canada, a Quebec judge asked the raped victim why she allowed her legs to be spread by the much larger and stronger male rapist. Why did she wear a skirt? Why had she had something to drink? Such a shame effective chastity belts aren’t in vogue. Give the seven Catholic Supreme Court Justices time enough and, lordy be, we’ll all enjoy returning to the middle ages. You know, the good ol’ days…

            Liked by 1 person

    1. The Barbara Kay article you link to seems to be deliberately provocative.

      I would certainly hope so. Vokey was fired for expressing an opinion which merely reflects objective biological reality. People have been deluged with rape threats and death threats for expressing similar opinions. This is a new McCarthyism. In the name of the same deranged ideology, in some countries male sex criminals who claim to be female have been sent to women’s prisons, with predictable results, and children are being given life-changing hormonal treatments they are too young to meaningfully consent to. It is madness. We need more people to stand up and say so in plain language.

      As to this recently-invented distinction between sex and gender which we’re now all supposed to recognize, sorry, but I just can’t be bothered.

      Like

      1. This is the case in Canada. I have written repeatedly to various government officials about the transference of male prisoners (incarcerated for being convicted of violent sexual assault and murder) to female prisons under the guise of identifying as a woman. In one particularly egregious case, the rapist was not only sent to the prison where his female victim for which he had been convicted was serving time but, after assaulting 3 other women in the prison, was removed and sent back to a male prison (the prisoner was a fully intact male). He then lodged a successful human rights complaint for discrimination and was sent back to the female prison. According to the responses I got from these officials, this was a victory for tolerance and compassion and inclusivity. Really. I responded by asking why the feelings of a convicted rapist should trump the feelings of his victims. Misogyny in alive and well in our open and tolerant and inclusive officially sanctioned bigotry. I think it’s a fucking horror story.

        I cannot think of a more vulnerable population than incarcerated women being forced into having to live and spend time with their abusers and rapists. But deplorable specifics of the totalitarian ideology in action never seem to bother the Red Guard warriors of virtue claiming justice as their sword and shield. Again, facts don’t matter to the True Believer.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. Every month with every change in policy as governments attracts support by doing so it gets worse and worse and worse as we slowly turn aside liberal principles and our liberal rights and freedoms in the name of attaining progressive advances towards Social Justice, in the name of Identity Politics, group-based privileges, gender, tolerance, equity, race, diversity, and so on. In every case, equality in law is undermined and individual rights and freedoms lost in the name of something else.

            The black and white reference Mak makes is the reversal in language common to every aspect of the movement, where we supposedly reduce racism by making race the central consideration, where we supposedly reduce harm of suicide to gender questioning youth by increasing the psychological harm through chemicals, the physical harm by surgical interventions, and the psychiatric harm by shortening life spans and increasing medical needs for life. We help ‘protect’ free speech by censoring it. We improve diversity by insisting only exactly matching results produce equity. And so on. This new religion uses the fundamental terms of liberalism, vilifies how all progress to date is insufficient and doomed, and then implements the actions that produce exactly the opposite value.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Should concessions be made with this particular issue?
            Is a win-win situation even possible?

            It seems that people will always feel the overiding need to ‘change’ so how do we as a society cope/deal with/ … I am at a loss to find the right word here .. a situation that is as alien to me as suggesting I ‘become gay’ or change species.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. …I am at a loss to find the right word here .. a situation that is as alien to me as suggesting I ‘become gay’ or change species.

            I believe I am in agreement with you here Ark. Understanding how very, very, very, VERY slowly evolution takes place in perceivable degrees on/in this planet’s living species—btw, which definitely includes all ancestors of Homo sapiens—I’d say it MIGHT be a miniscule chance that after 50,000 or 100,000 years my male descendants would consider being a different gender or sexual-orientation is perhaps somewhere between a 0.352% to 0.0000165% chance it would happen. And that is speaking from a purely genetic, neurological, and endocrinological standpoint, not a social/environmental or an ecological standpoint. Evolution does not happen in large measures in a matter of months or a few years, right?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Agreed. But surely what Tildeb descibed above regarding a male being sent to a female prison should not be ‘allowed’? This strikes me as sheer madness.

            Liked by 2 people

  6. It all depends where one draws the line. If the employee had said “Gay men aren’t real men”, would that then be a fire-able offence? Which demographic can be insulted? When does a business owner have the right to decide they don’t want their brand associated with certain ideas? As a business owner myself, my line has always been for employees to insult no one who’s a potential client or associated with potential clients.

    Deep down I think this is more a cultural issue linked to Protestant cultures where “performative morality” plays a major role. In that sense often things don’t actually have to with the prejudices per se, but to group membership or hierarchy within the group. This is directly derived from the Protestant religious dynamics and Purity (and piety) Culture. More than once in discussion I realised a person defending racism or homophobia wasn’t personally racist or homophobic but performed those things as a cultural identity marker. This is in contrast to Catholic cultures which have an entirely different dynamic where public non-transgression is the accepted standard.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Drawing the line is indeed a factor.
      According to the article, the woman made no mention of her employer. She is a huge Harry Potter fan and posted her support for Rowlings, so the article asserted.

      Liked by 1 person

          1. Everything in particular. Their front page promotes Trump, Charlie Kirk and Kanye West. They’re also promoting the conspiracy theories against Hunter Biden. They say lockdowns are deadlier than Covid and so on and so forth. It’s a mill for extremist right wing disinformation.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Just read Kay’s Wiki page …. yes, I know… Wiki, sheesh!
            Anyhow, she has led , well, let’s just say a colourful life as a journalist?
            🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          3. A-HA! Exactly my concern, I searched and couldn’t find mention of the story anywhere else. There’s a blog that links back to the article. I have a feeling that if it were well substantiated, the story would have been carried far and wide as it’s perfect click-bait.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I think it’s probably more a story of unbridled exaggeration. We’re talking about a little vegetarian café that sells salads for $10. They wouldn’t have an employee just for social media, right? I imagine at best she lost a “client” who paid her for a few hours work a month. And once we put it in those terms, a client obviously gets to choose the profile of the person they take their business to.

            Like

          5. This point is often missed: local media often spikes any story that might cause the wrath of transactivists (and other mouthpieces for the Woke movement) and usually goes out of its way to sound as virtuous as they think they have to be to avoid being called hateful bigots. Going against that tide is hard and risky for editors knowing that even big name editors (James Bennett) can, will, and have been fired for crossing that line, big named columnists (Bari Weiss, Andrew Sullivan) with national followings can, will, and have been forced out, that there is only one permittable narrative to broadcast. Sure, JK Rowling can survive the vicious onslaught of accusations and character assassination by transactivists and their deluded supporters but look how the strident mob aligns itself with the correct narrative first and presumes it must be true because, hey, it’s virtuous, donchaknow. Just like religious folk must be more virtuous because, hey, they’re religious.

            What almost all media does now is broadcast stories within the framework of the correct belief narrative (Covington high school students portrayed by all media as bigots with no one reporting what was true) and everyone else in public media goes along with it and amplifies it… I imagine out of reasonable fear. Any contrary story understandably pops up only in media that is already sidelined so that people can dismiss it not by its truthful content but by its dubious context. This is the ‘game’ many supporters of the Woke play all the time and one long criticized by the famous atheists; when legitimate criticism is only supported in media by dubious publications and parties that have motivation for using the story for partisan benefit then the context ends up trumping the content. Harris specifically has long complained that accurate stories regarding Islam often appear only in far right wing publications and that this indicates a tremendous problem of accessing all the facts for the common person.

            This is why transactivists go after the individuals in the media who will not align with the correct narrative and all too often gets people less famous the JK Rowling to either vilify Rowling as a transphobe or risk getting similarly attacked and character assassinated. These brave folk who respect facts and think what’s true actually matters often have their careers destroyed by the mob not for being less truthful but for respecting what’s true over and above the necessary narrative and having the invertebrates within the organization empowered by such a hostile reaction to get rid of ‘the problem’. The NY Times is a primary example where the Purge has largely been completed.

            Although I call this deplorable tactic a ‘game’ (casting dispersion by association), let me assure you the victims will tell you otherwise, and they are legion and growing in number across all kinds of areas… from science to education to corporations to government to law. The effect is all negative. More importantly, the only ‘home’ these victims find support is usually from the Right. And so we are expected to dismiss them en masse because the Right itself has been vilified as deplorable. And the Right is now everything not far Left enough. These victims are to be rejected outright, every one of them, ever criticism they have, every example they offer of why this Woke movement is deeply anti-liberal in every facet it appears, not by the metric of what’s true and justified, but by ideological fiat.

            That is exactly how religious belief works, to dismiss not only what’s true in fact if contrary to faith-based belief but to relegate the carriers of such facts – like those strident, hate-filled New Atheists – as deplorable people of low character who deserve to be dismissed.

            Liked by 3 people

  7. Sacked Australian rugby player Israel Folau posted on social media “hell awaits” gay people. This idiot was followed by many thousands of rugby faithful.

    I agreed he needed to be sacked for provoking and degrading a minority group of people, his team mates and the public regardless of their sexual status on the planet do not need to be a target of a bigoted Christian.

    Imagine if one of his famous team mates posted Satan awaits Christians, the devil makes love to Christians or Christians are child molesters, wankers and mentally disabled etc. All true in many cases I know but… they would also be sacked.

    In this girls case, maybe it was not intended in the same manner.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Judge each incident on is merits?
      I remember Folau’s case.
      Isn’t he of Tongan descent?
      And wasn’t Tonga once , discovered by the Spanish or Dutch (?), and then invaded .. sorry, came under the protectorate of the British.
      And weren’t its inhabitants indoctrinated into Christianity by Methodist missionaries?

      Gotta love them Christians, right?
      Just saying …

      😉

      Liked by 2 people

      1. “Judge each incident on its merits?”

        Yeah. One law for the goodies, another for the baddies. Genius. That way, justice will always be done. We’ll get the right people every time.

        Like

  8. @sklyjd
    Sacking people for “wrongthink” has overtones of totalitarianism — whether of the left or right, makes no difference. If we’re in favour of free speech, and against censorship, then we have to allow our opponents the same right, as Chomsky pointed out.

    Offence against a minority, or “provoking and degrading” them is not grounds enough for automatic dismissal of someone from their job. Who cares what a fundy Christian moron like Folau thinks about gays going to “hell”?

    If people are so easily triggered by such rubbish, then they either need to develop thicker skins, and/or we should teach children better resilience and survival skills.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. On his case one can drag it back to why he thinks like that?
      Of course we realise it is his Christian indoctrination, and thus he is merely a product of the insidious culture that ”created” him.

      Should he have been sacked?

      If you were a manager of a sports team – football for example – and you had someone like Colorstorm or John Allman going off about how the gay footballer of your arch rivals was going to hell because of his ”pervesion”, or if you were manager of a woman’s football team and one of your players went ranting about how several of the opponent’s team were lesbian and two had had abortions would you really want this person seen as a representative of your team?

      Yes…. you gotta love religion, right?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. You have a point, Ark. But sacking them, even for disagreeable beliefs…? Do they “represent” the team, or just themselves and their own personal bigotry?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Interesting idea, but I have questions about the minutiae. Let’s say a Muslim player says women who don’t cover their heads are filthy whores? Or a Christian player says Jews are a sub-race? At what point does the employer have the right to say he doesn’t want certain ideas associated with the brand he’s probably spent much time, effort and money building?

          Liked by 1 person

          1. To borrow from Michael Tomasky in the NYT a few days ago: John Stuart Mill in “On Liberty,” wrote that liberty (or freedom) means “doing as we like, subject to such consequences as may follow, without impediment from our fellow creatures, as long as what we do does not harm them even though they should think our conduct foolish, perverse or wrong.”

            The important section being “as long as what we do does not harm them.”
            Any proposition a class of innocent people be treated as lesser citizens, by direct or indirect means, is an attack on their very citizenhood.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Technically, yes. But we need all the facts to make a decision. Are we talking about an employee or a free lancer? A long contract or an hourly arrangement?

            Like

          3. I was just basing my previous comment on the ”facts” at hand (as per the post).

            Of course, ideally statements from the employer and employee would go a long way to iron out any discrepancies.
            As you tend to be a better sleuth than I in such matters maybe the tale is a storm in a teacup?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “At what point does the employer have the right to say he doesn’t want certain ideas associated with the brand?”

            When an employee actually tries to associate an idea with the employer’s brand, without authority, of course.

            Like

          5. I have personally worked for a British company that asked me to not have an open blog while I worked for them. As they put it, working for them was like being at a dinner party, no politics, religion or sex talk. I thought it was fair enough and for almost two years had a private blog (Ark, our host here, probably remembers that period.) When people maintain a public profile and sign their names to statements, their actions will automatically link back to their employers or clients.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. How is it different? An employer sets a standard where they want no controversial comments associated with the brand they built. They don’t want to turn off any potential clients. There’s nothing extreme about that.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. It’s a fairly basic principle. If a person disagrees with the use of weapons, they shouldn’t sign up to be in the army or the police. When one *chooses* to accept employment or a client, they accept whatever conditions are part of that deal.

            Like

          8. I’m sure there was nothing in Folau’s contract that required him not to express a belief in “hell”, or in the possibility of repentance unto salvation for the sinner, or in particular standards of sexual morality, if he wanted to carry on playing rugby for Australia. If there was, there shouldn’t have been.

            Like

          9. Sorry, John. Not to nag, but still waiting for a response on the Folau question re: his religion/evidence.
            If you prefer not to answer because it makes you uncomfortable please just say so.

            Like

        2. You cannot have a winning team that heaps his beliefs on everyone else in the team that may include homosexuals, atheists, adulterers and heavy drinkers etc. not to mention the fans who pay his wages to watch him play football not criticise them.

          Folau belongs to a religious branch that has been called a cult by other Christians, so the guy is screwed in his head anyway. If he had just said all sinners go to hell fair enough but once you target groups of people it becomes not only discrimination but provocative and causes division just like in America that may cause retribution that could easily become violent.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. That’s ironic, John. What is it you like? The fact that I’m defending Folau’s “right” to be a bigot, or that believing anyone goes to hell for homosexuality or anything else, is a pile of rubbish?

      Surely not the latter…?
      😈=💩

      Liked by 1 person

      1. No. I’m upvoting loads your comments for the former reason, not (as you say) the latter. I find this discussion potential worthwhile as long as it stays on track as a discussion of the practice of employers victimising employees for their self-expression outside the workplace, or at the workplace when their self-expression isn’t disruptive of the work for that matter.

        One contributor has lapsed into ad hominem (and ad coetum) once, mentioning people “like” me (named). I may wich to abandon the discussion, if that continues.

        Like

        1. That was me John. You may write ”Ark said ….” it is perfectly okay.
          And it was not ad hom. Unless you can domonstrate otherwise and I will apologise.
          Things often wander down several paths here. I don’t really mind-
          You will note that Prof and I regularly discuss football as a side thread.

          So, why do you consider Israel Folau a goodie?

          Like

          1. I haven’t said that I consider Folau to be a goodie. I was trying to highlight the problem with the slogan “each on its merits”, that it leads to goodies v baddies thinking. Many people often tend to think in terms of goodies and baddies, to differ on what is good and bad, and to consider themselves goodies, and those with whom they disagree to be baddies.

            Like

          2. Fair enough.

            As we know there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support Folau’s religious beliefs, in a similar vein, do you consider white players should be allowed to make likewise unsubstantiated statements about black players?

            Like

          3. What would you accept as evidence of Folau’s religious beliefs? What evidence persuades you of yours?

            You would have to make your hypothetical and somewhat contrived question (about an unlikely scenario) a great deal more specific, before could I even begin to consider satisfying your curiousity as to what I might “consider”. What exactly does the fictional white player want to state about black players, in what context? In what sense are you asking whether he would or should be “allowed” to say whatever that was? How is this comparable with the news story about the shop worker with the t-shirt that mentions J K Rowling?

            In general, I am opposed to the extra-judicial punishment, on the part of masters, of perceived thought and speech crimes on the part of their servants.

            A good principle is that any punishment ought to fit the crime. Once one has conceded at all the high principle that punishing a worker with dismissal for saying something with which his boss disagrees and which isn’t relevant to his fitness to do his job effectively, there is no telling where this might end. That concession takes us onto a slippery slope on which I think it is best not to step at all. This is a cherished value of liberalism that others have pointed out to you. Like those others, I have made it clear that I cherish that value too.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. What would you accept as evidence of Folau’s religious beliefs? What evidence persuades you of yours?

            To be clear, John, are you asking whether I consider Folau is sincere about his religious beliefs or is there any evidence for his beliefs?

            What exactly does the fictional white player want to state about black players, in what context?

            Anything that we would generally regard as racist.

            How is this comparable with the news story about the shop worker with the t-shirt that mentions J K Rowling?

            It isn’t. We had moved to Folau and his religious based rhetoric.

            A good principle is that any punishment ought to fit the crime.

            Agreed! Hence my previous comment about judging an action on its merits.

            The woman was showing her support for JK Rowling and, in my view, should not have lost her job on this basis.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Folau may not mean his word “homosexuals” to refer to what you mean by “gays”. In his vocabulary and dogma, a homosexual is somebody who chooses to behave in a certain way, not somebody with an innate, unchosen, and immutable “orientation” as the dogma that you and Folau’s employer probably believe preaches.

            I infer that Folau believes that there will be a day of judgment, at which God will separate the saved from the lost forever, but certainly not that there are natural goodies and baddies amongst the population, so that a person’s character should alter his or her legal rights and obligations in society, or his eligibility for God’s gracious salvation (which Folau preaches) – salvation from the consequences of being under God’s pending, eschatological wrath because of the misbehaviors (sins) that express his fallen nature.

            If he thinks about it, I doubt that Folau wants the civil and criminal law of mankind to have different laws for different classes of citizen, one law for the goodies, another for the baddies as I caricatured what I thought might be implicit in Ark’s approach. There is a danger of caselaw making that double standard a de facto status quo implicit in the over-use of Ark’s favoured slogan, each case on its merits. Not having the same laws for every citizen leaves the citizen uncertain as to his social rights and obligations in the exercise of his free speech. He does not know in advance whether saying what he believes about behaviours he considers taboo, sinful, immoral, is legally safe or not. This has a chilling effect upon free speech. It enables the rich and powerful to impose their values and beliefs upon the underlings, or at least to silence their dissenting voices. This is not egalitarian.

            I hope this clarifies.

            Like

          2. Interesting that sexual preference is innate for same-sex attraction but apparently a transitional preference for those who wish to switch biological sex! Until Thursday, that is.

            Why the gay community as a whole doesn’t reject transactivism in its ludicrous entirety is truly a mystery to me when it undermines exactly the central case for same-sex attraction and legal equality: innateness.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. @ The Pink Agendist

            “So you’re asserting Folau has no issue with gay people in the modern sense?”

            I cannot speak for Folau, but it probably depends what you mean by “issue”. He ought to have an issue with the modern, deterministic doctrine that some people “are gay”.

            Like

          4. Sorry to interupt John, but I am still waiting for a response regarding your question about Folau, his religious beliefs and evidence.
            Thanks.

            Like

          5. YOu asked …

            What would you accept as evidence of Folau’s religious beliefs? What evidence persuades you of yours?

            I responded …

            To be clear, John, are you asking whether I consider Folau is sincere about his religious beliefs or is there any evidence for his beliefs?

            Like

          6. You stated his dismissal was unfair based on his understanding of the word homosexual being different from the modern use. So my question is if he also objects to people described by the modern use? He was given the opportunity to delete his post or qualify his statement and he chose not to. Where does that leave your defence?

            Liked by 1 person

          7. I didn’t say Folau’s dismissal was fair based upon his meaning. I mentioned his meaning by way of answering a different question, which you had asked,

            His dismissal was unfair because he’s a rugby player who expressed himself, not a spokesman for his employer expressing inaccurately his employer’s thoughts, on “hell” on the occasion concerned.

            It is ridiculous anyway that his employer should have a corporate opinion about questions of Christian doctrine, or LGBT doctrine for that matter. It’s just a glorified rugby club, not the Spanish Inquisition, or Stonewall. Emanations of the state and sports clubs that have a monopoly of representing a nation should not have religious beliefs that all employees are expected to assent to (or shut their mouths) in a modern, secular society like Australia, let alone be granted by the courts the power to enforce conformity, throwing their weight around like bloody Tudor monarchs. I thought we’d progressed beyond those dark days by now, when bullies tried to tell everyone what their religious beliefs ought to be. Please try to develop a sense of proportion, or at least to learn a lesson from history.

            At heart, you seem to me (so far) to lust for tyranny. You seem to believe that your faith is one that others ought to be punished for not professing. Deny this if you can.

            Like

          8. That’s called double talk. Why imply his understanding of the word was different unless you meant to justify his use of it? That’s a fairly straightforward attempt at deception.

            Like

          9. That was no attempt at “deception” on my part. Rather, I was attempting clarification. In what sense was there any “double talk”? I don’t know what you mean by that expression.

            When those of a certain churchmanship or theological school of thought use the adjective “homosexual” of an individual, they mean that that individual has chosen, or at least sunk into (as a result of a succession of small choices), a certain sinful lifestyle. In contrast, when LGBT believers use the adjective “homosexual” of an individual, they mean that that individual possesses what they conceive of as a certain morally neutral, unchosen and immutable so-called “sexual orientation”.

            I don’t have to “justify” my observation that the two faith communities are talking at cross-purposes, meaning different things when they use the same word. They use words differently because they have diametrically opposed beliefs about how things are in the world. I merely document that truth.

            Folau uses the adjective “homosexual” of individuals when he wishes to refer to a certain lifestyle choice that he believes others make. That usage no more requires “justification” than does an LGBT dogmatists usage of the same word to refer to an unchosen and immutable so-called “sexual orientation” the individual is held to possess involuntarily (a doctrine in which Folau doesn’t believe, but which LGBT dogmatists preach).

            Two doctrines contradict one another. Those doctrinal systems underlay an observable difference in the way in which disciples of the two schools use the common word, “homosexual” when referring to persons. Neither side of the doctrinal dispute needs to “justify” to the other their different use of language from that of the other.

            Like

          10. That’s more double talk; Which is why my first question was whether you were implying Folau had no objection to the modern acception of the word. This can be whittled down to two scenarios. One, he equates homosexuals to criminals. Two, he does not. The hostility in the first scenario gives his employer the right to reconsider their position as it puts their business at risk.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. @ Ark

            “To be clear, John, are you asking whether I consider Folau is sincere about his religious beliefs or is there any evidence for his beliefs?”

            Neither. I’m asking you what sort of evidence you would want (e.g. from me, or from Folau) in order at least to make a start on persuading you that what Folau believed might be true.

            Like

          12. Folau has no evidence merely biblical claims which he believes is evidence.
            Thus, can anything pertaining to his claims be substantiated? No.
            Thus they remain unsubstantiated claims.
            “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

            Like

          13. No avoidance at all.
            The onus is always on the one making the original claim to make good on said claim. To wit:
            Folau is making an unsubstantiated claim that has no evidence to support it.

            To hammer home this point so there is no ambiguity.
            Folau has not presented any evidence for his claims.

            Therefore, he/you must first present evidence (that can be supported).
            Then we can judge whether there is any veracity to said claim.

            You have a reasonable understanding of the law and the scientific method, I hope?

            ”I saw a man walk on water!”, is not a statement that, on its own, would pass muster in any court of law, and neither would anything uttered along the lines of … ”Sinners are going to Hell if they do not repent.”

            As you and Folau are both Christians with ( I presume) similar beliefs feel free to offer evidence on Folau’s behalf.
            And remember: If anything you offer as ‘evidence’ cannot be substantiated it will remain nothing but an unsubstantiated claim . (see. Walk on water example above.)
            I hope this clarifies your/Folau’s position?

            Like

          14. It was Steve (Sklyjd) who first mentioned Folau and you posted your Tweet. It seems you did ”want this (that) conversation”, as it is grossly unfair and intellecutally dishonest to try to disassociate Folau’s religious beliefs from the context if one is not prepared to offer evidence for such beliefs, especially when his rhetoric is unsubstantiated nonsene based on indoctrination and considered hate speech by some and certainly indicitive of gross intolerance.

            One can only conclude from your reluctance/refusal to engage that you do not have evidence to support your/Folau’s claim.

            When one considers the damage done to children, and by extension many adults, through religious indoctrination, and until such nonsense is eradicated from society through education then
            Folau’s utterances need to be checked.

            Like

          15. John, this is getting annoying,
            I tire of having my questions returned/’answered’ with another question. As I suggested it leads me to believe you have no evidence to support your/Folau’s beliefs.
            If you are prepared to cease this handwaving and answer the question regarding evidence then we can proceed.
            Your call.

            Like

          16. As I wrote previously, your refusal/reluctance to engage suggests you have no evidence to offer which then adds justification of Folau’s dismissal for espousing ignorant unsubstantiated nonsense.

            Like

          17. Please explain how, in a free society, there is “justification” for dismissing an employee merely “for espousing ignorant unsubstantiated nonsense”, from a job playing rugby football.

            Like

          18. If you’d like to convince Ark, or anyone else for that matter, that what Folau said was “right”, the first thing you have to do is strip from them any sense, any vestige, of morality or ethics. That’s because a person’s sexual orientation doesn’t determine their capability to be honest, to be loyal, to be kind, to care for a parent with alzheimer’s or wipe the brow of their partner going through chemotherapy. When someone uses a fellow citizen’s sexual orientation to classify them as in any way “less than”, they have to do so entirely divorced from any true understanding of the difference between right and wrong. And that applies equally to those who use double-talk to dissimulate the assault.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. Firstly, I am not now and have never been trying “to convince Ark, or anyone else for that matter, that what Folau said was ‘right’.” I have already told you that, because the word “justify” you used has to do with convincing that something or somebody is right. Please stop trying to engage me in an argument about something I do not wish to argue about.

            Secondly, Folau was not writing about the so-called sexual orientation in which you believe, because he doesn’t share your belief in that doctrine. Nor was he using the thing he didn’t believe in anyway in order to classify anybody in any way.

            Neither Folau’s beliefs about hell nor those about sex of the lady fired from her job in a restaurant had anything at all to do with their jobs.

            Folau and you are both indoctrinated, but differently. From a position of having been indoctrinated myself, in both Christianity and LGBT dogma, I can see this. I can see both sides. I understand your misunderstanding of Folau. because I’ve been there myself to some extent.

            Like

          20. Dogma refers to belief without evidence. I subscribe to no such thing. I do however believe in each citizen’s right to lead their lives freely within a code that limits the harm that can be done to others – so as to not infringe upon the next person’s freedom. That’s not dogma or even dogmatic.

            Liked by 2 people

  9. Ah, the conservatives in this country have lobbied and fought for centuries to make all states “at will” states when it comes to jobs, which means the employees can be fired for any reason or no reason whatsoever, as long as they do not violate the law. Rowling Groupies do not form a protected class and so, the firing was legal … and barking crazy at the same time. This is what the conservatives are reaping from what they sowed.

    We all have equal power, however, on the flip side you cannot be forced to work for a shitty employer, such as this one.

    PS Some employments are bound by a contract, often negotiated by a labor union, that requires some sort of due process for a firing. These often list fire-able offences. You can see why conservatives hate labor unions. When they want to throw a tantrum, they want to throw a tantrum.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. I often think that FB should be disinvented. I don’t know why I still use it, except it’s useful sometimes.
    And on another social media matter: you had been unfollowed by my account. So am refollowing.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. @Ark:
    “Folau has no evidence merely biblical claims which he believes is evidence.”

    Granted, but it seems a little disingenuous for anyone therefore to take undue offence or claim vilification over whatever stupidity Folau comes out with.

    I realise that some people are indoctrinated into the same nonsense about “hell” as Folau was — they have real fears concerning such things, and Dawkins was probably right to call such inculcation “child abuse”. But we need to educate children better, and teach them to see evangelical threats for the empty scare-mongering they clearly are.

    Like

    1. Might be rather hard to do with 7 Justices of the Supreme Court good little Catholics willing to change the law to better reflect their faith-based beliefs as Supreme.

      Like

      1. Ginsberg should have retired when Obama was in office, so he could appoint a progressive. Too late now.

        But I’m not American. You guys have your own way of doing things.

        Like

    2. Interesting point!
      However, it is worth considering that, it is not only (some?) religious people /groups that hold such ridiculous views regarding homosexuality.

      It is a difficult call. You and I and millions more have probably never experienced any sort of tacit or even overt prejudice and any slight on us we usually deal with by ”bucking up”.
      And perhaos there are a lot of gay people who simply shrug and mumble, ”F**k him.”

      Education is the key, but until such beliefs are finally eradicated from society then some measures at least need to be put in place to stop Dickheads like Folau spouting off his idiotic bullshit.

      Like

      1. “You and I and millions more have probably never experienced any sort of tacit or even overt prejudice”

        I suggest you visit Project Implicit and do the test. Please let us all know how you get on.

        Like

        1. I initially did the weight test – as it was the first on the list and I have been a runner/jogger for a good portion of my adult life.
          Subsequently I did the religion test which suggests that I have a slight preference of Christianity over Judaism for some really odd reason?
          I think I was not quick enough on the E &
          I keys or something like that.
          So, what was the point of you sending me to this site?

          Like

          1. Okay. And I promise I will cut and paste the results here on this thread – for all to see!
            On one condition. You present the evidence you have to support your/Folau’s religious beliefs.
            Fair enough?

            Like

          2. No. There is no equivalence. I haven’t asserted that Folau’s beliefs are true. You have (if not in so many words) asserted that you are free of unconscious bias. Most people aren’t, as Project Implicit has shown.

            Like

          3. I believe his religious beliefs govern his worldview and thus, if he makes such sweeping statements that impact on others he should be obliged to produce evidence to support such claims.
            There … my cards are on the table.

            I haven’t asserted that Folau’s beliefs are true

            Fair enough.
            So I’m asking now.

            Do you consider Folau’s religious beliefs are
            a) True
            b) Evidence based.
            If you do then please present evidence.

            If you have no evidence to present then like Folau, you are merely expressing an unsubstantiated claim/opinion.

            .

            Like

          4. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Folau made an “unsubstantiated claim” that had nothing to do with playing rugby (his job). So what? How was that relevant to his job?

            Like

          5. Once more … please answer the questions.
            Do you consider Folau’s religious beliefs are
            a) True
            b) Evidence based.
            If you do then please present evidence.

            Like

          6. What bearing has my willingness or unwillingness to assert to you today the truth or falsehood of Folau’s unsubstantiated assertions online upon the rights or wrongs of Rugby Australia’s treatment of him? Freedom of thought includes the right to think wrongly.

            Like

          7. It would be fair to say his religious beliefs underpin his worldview.
            If you align with these religious beliefs it would be fair to say you very likely have a similar worldview.

            Let’s work from this basis.
            Do you have evidence for your/Folau’s religious based claims?
            If so, please present. it.
            Furthermore, once we establish this I am more than willing to engage you on the LGBT questions/issues you have raised in another comment. On this you have my word.

            Like

          8. How did Folau’s unsubstantiated statement “impact” anybody else? How is punishing the making of unsubstantiated statements appropriate in a liberal democracy?

            Many of the controversial doctrines of the LGBT teachers are unsubstantiated too. Should those who recite those doctrines at home be punished for their unsubstantiated statements at work too? Who has the right to decide which unsubstantiated statements are protected, and which are punishable, in an equal society?

            Like

          9. Folau’s comment will impact on the fan base, his team mates and every community because he has judged them all in his own delusional beliefs of reality. This stuff effects the business he is employed in.

            Even though he has unsubstantial claims, declaring someone or many people deserve hell in normal situations is universally understood of hating those people.

            Is it not about time for people in these volatile times to stop declaring religious bigotry to purposely target and cause divisions in our society such as what Trump has very efficiently done? I did not see any Christian love in Folau’s message, only intense hate.

            If you have anything substantial to justify Folau for preaching such divisive fantasies please let me know.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. 66

            Folau’s comment will impact on the fan base, his team mates and every community because he has judged them all in his own delusional beliefs of reality. This stuff effects the business he is employed in.

            If you have anything substantial to justify Folau for preaching such divisive fantasies please let me know.

            99

            As I have said repeatedly, I have no need to “justify” Folau’s preaching of divisive “fantasies” here. I’d have criticised his sacking from a purely secular perspective just as much if he’d been an atheist who was hostile to Christians, or a Pastafarian, because that wasn’t relevant to his rugby-playing.

            If you have anything more “substantial” to justify Folau’s sacking than your pathetic whinge beginning, “Folau’s comment will impact on the fan base …”, please let me know.

            Like

          11. I am on the site as I type. I see Gender-Career, and Transgender and Skin Tone but no LGBT.
            I see the Race test.
            Do you want me to take the transgender and skin tone tests as well?

            Like

    1. Exactly. The code is not law nor brought into law by legal council but is announced by a tribunal, which then refers to the Bill that Jordan Peterson took issue with that mandates obedience by all. (The bill – C-16 – proposes adding gender identity and gender orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act. This is a list of prohibited discriminations. This means that it would become illegal under the Act to deny someone a job or discriminate against them in the workplace based on the gender they identify with or outwardly express.)

      So the flip side of this legislation using the federal Human Rights Act by which the provincial Human Rights Tribunals gain their authority – the flip side being about not going along with the generic labeling of someone based on his/her/zie/zim/zir/zis/sie/hir/em/eir/ver/vis/ter/tem gender identity – usually results in a charge of ‘hate’ (or, in this case, firing) not as a criminal act but a civil suit with financial penalties brought forward by the Tribunal, judged by the Tribunal, and executed by the Tribunal. Not paying the Tribunal’s penalty (usually enough to cause irreparable financial harm to the ‘convicted’ bigot) will then result in a criminal charge of ‘contempt’. In this way, the threat of being seen as going against the wishes of this kangaroo court, an Organ of the State, is enough to cow most people into abject submission.

      This is why Jordan Peterson’s very public refusal to implement mandatory pronouns by government decree really did involve the very real risk of criminal proceedings and jail time for contempt if he didn’t pay whatever amount the Tribunal might decide. Of course, his position teaching at the University of Toronto was harmed and so he did not escape financial punishment for standing on principle. This very public stance is why the Tribunal decided retreat was the better part of valor because they knew what they were doing would likely trigger a backlash against them if the case became too public.

      The Tribunal had cause for this concern.

      A decade previously, this public exposure happened when the national publication Maclean’s Magazine was charged with hate for an article it published, who then had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending its right (it’s unusual for defence lawyers to be used in the Tribunal cases because, hey, it’s not a court!) to publish facts against charges of ‘discrimination’ and ‘hate’ (it involved daring to expose and criticize certain tenets of Islam). The Tribunal decided to withdraw its charges because the whole country was in a tizzy that the conviction rate was 100% and so the moniker of the Tribunals being kangaroo courts was revealed nationally and caused political damage to the Liberals. Sure enough, the next Prime Minister (Harper and a Conservative) gutted the federal statute and defanged these little Red Guard minions. Bill C-16 was brought forward by Trudeau (Liberal) under the heading of magically reducing discrimination of these poor, poor transactivists (including the rapists and murders of women and children who wished to be housed in women’s prisons because, you know, hurt feelings of discrimination that their penises and testicles were not being accepted as part of their womanly identity) who wanted full and unfettered access to protected spaces for females under the disguise of improving human rights of inclusion, diversity, and equity.

      The latest move involves outlawing conversion therapy using the idea of not allowing enforced conversion against those who exhibit a same-sex attraction. Sounds reasonable, right? But, of course, the transactivists can now and have used this legislation to threaten anyone who stands ready to assist a gender-questioning youth with facts to stand back and leave the full bore indoctrination up to the transactivists without ANY interference. This has already happened several times, threatening parents, doctors, and therapists with ‘hate’ charges being brought to the provincial Tribunal if they dare to meddle between a gender-questioning child and transactivists who outline how to start transitioning.

      It’s truly, truly deplorable and puts real people, real children, in real life in real danger. This is part of what JK Rowling does NOT support and she’s being vilified for daring to do what any decent, moral, and principled person SHOULD be doing: respecting what’s true over and above what is believed to be true and THEN acting responsibly.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Not being fully up to speed with all this; regarding gender issue with children.
        How does the law regard a child’s wish to transition?

        Like

        1. Again, if a child indicates some self-questioning between gender and sex and transactivists find out about it – usually through social media and ‘help’ sites that ‘answers’ questions children might submit – then the parents are caught between a rock and a hard place. The schools have announced that the ‘best practices’ guideline is to immediately implement a change in pronouns on all documents because, hey, everyone knows that gender identity is fluid and so there is no need to break the privacy of the child with those legally responsible for them – the parents. If someone does try to interfere with a child on the path to transition after receiving such ‘help’ and the transactivists find out about it – usually through social media and discussions on these ever-growing ‘help’ sites – then they threaten a human rights case against anyone critical, which (remember) isn’t brought before a court but a tribunal and so the only laws that apply refer to the human rights act which makes conversion therapy illegal… because, hey, sexual preference is innate. Everyone knows that. The transactivists can have their cake and eat it, too, using either the fluid or the innate argument depending which helps them the best to vilifty the moral character of anyone questioning or critiquing their advice. As a bonus, transactivists are immune from responsibility for the therapies they recommend and are free to fling accusations of bigotry and hate even at parents concerned about the health of their children. (The favorite accusation has to do with claiming a high suicide rate for untreated transsexuals and so one must be a terrible person for standing against that which ‘helps’ reduce the suicide rate, you see. Never mind that the suicide rate for adults who have undergone transition is actually higher.) This could include a school whose staff member might have let the parents know something was going on, and the schools will sacrifice anything not to look bad in any way and so they contort themselves keeping information as private as possible and get rid of people who break that code of silence. This is really powerful evidence why the diagnosis of ‘gender dysphoria’ tends now to be elementary and middle school aged girls, tends to be clustered into the girls’ social circle, and why clusters of the same drug prescriptions affecting hormones tends to go unnoticed by parents… until someone somewhere rings an alarm bell. Isn’t it perfectly natural for a few dozen girls at early puberty at a single school in a few months suddenly become ‘born in the wrong body’?

          Therapists in particular are trying to scream about this problem because they have access to the few long term studies on the vastly increased risks in all health areas for these ‘dysphoric’ adults who underwent secretive treatment when children. And they even talk among themselves. Their offering to local public media usually get rejected outright (spiked). But even the professional journals in their areas of expertise won’t publish critiques of this disgusting practice… or retract any that ‘get past’ the editors… and university psychology departments and medical research faculties won’t fund this kind of ‘discriminatory’ research. In fact, when a faculty member suggests such a study, they tend to suffer a negative consequence like not being rehired if not tenured or switched and demoted on prestigious committee work if tenured, and professionally shunned. It’s a taboo subject fraught with the possibility of easy vilification for anyone not ready to announce their ‘virtue’ and easy harm caused to anyone – professionals especially – who dare questions the transactivist ideology or tries to hold policy makers to account for these unnecessary tragedies.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. So, if I read this right, effectively, a child’s welfare (?) still falls to the parents until that child is a legal adult?
            Or have I misread you and such parental rights can be usurped?

            Like

          2. Yeah, it’s both. Yes, the parents are legally responsible but they are not given the authority when important information is withheld, when child rights advocates – in this case the transactivists themselves – presume the parental rights are less than the child’s wishes and feelings, when government and school staff and medical people undermine the parents’ authority, and when very real threats are leveled about interfering because of hate, because of discrimination and bigotry, because the parent supposedly would prefer a dead child over a transsexual by denying the immediate process of starting the transition. Hence, any denial by anyone at any point to this process is dismissed by the easy charge of ‘transphobia’ and all the invertebrates held upright only by ideologically correct virtue enable it. Like a religious belief that cannot be criticized – without both the criticism being labeled as blasphemy and the criticizer condemned for being a blasphemer, so too is criticism of the Woke ideology – in this case transactivism – considered blasphemy and those who do so bigots, haters, and -phobes. And more importantly, what’s true simply doesn’t matter so the real life victims don’t matter, either. The only important things are twofold: one must believe to be virtuous, and one must go along to get along.

            Like

          3. So my advice is to deal with issues and stick with respecting what’s knowable, what’s true, and learning to identify faith-based beliefs when they arise and criticize them appropriately when they cause harm. Just like going after religious belief in the public domain: they have no rightful place.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I suspect that even though John Allman has liked your previous comment he will strongly disagree with this statement where it pertains to his religious belief. Although I doubt he will engage you on it as you may have noticed his reluctance to offer an honest straightforward answer re: evidence.

            Like

          5. Well, it’s like being an atheist in a religious world: people might like how one thinks when it comes to this, that, or the other thing, but not when it comes to something personal or cherished. The trick here is to see beyond the personal and look honestly at the thinking itself… like dialogue in a bubble above a drawn character like in a comic strip. It’s what’s in the bubble that is being discussed and not the character assigned to it. If there’s a flaw or a mistake in the reasoning, then let’s fix it together even if it means changing one’s mind or altering an opinion. That’s how we learn.

            The reason why today’s ideology is so pernicious is that it uses the tools of religion to grow itself as the toxic meme it is. But not enough people are recognizing it for what it is – religious belief – seeming unable or unwilling to grasp the speed and depth of the infection into the body politic nor grasping why it’s so pernicious to its health. This ideology produces cult-like supporters – and similarly, like those who have left the faith, a string of ex-supporters who have woken up to their delusion and written about being fooled. Faith of the ideological kind also immunizes believers from legitimate criticism in the same way religions inoculate themselves: by faith over facts, loyalty over reason, membership over community. Let me introduce the Brave New Virtues: same as the old. Maybe not enough people have read 1984 recently.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. I don’t know the story or the specifics.

            But I do know that one is expected to give up one’s individuality to be a part of a greater whole in many cases. Anyone, for example, who imports divisive ideas into a team locker room that can adversely affect team unity is usually severely punished not because the ideas are right or not on merit but because unity is the higher virtue to which all team members must subscribe. I may be wrong here, but I have found this understanding to be a very male thing in that males tend to be willing to join male organizations for just this reason alone! I am unaware of female organizations that do this individual suppression but, hey, what do I know?

            The same is true in the military where unit cohesion trumps individual interests. So I presume that individual beliefs are fine and dandy within the right context but unacceptable in the wrong ones.

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s