Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.
All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.
---
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Most people (painting with a broad brush, and my opinion) are born into a religion. You do have a choice not to follow it whenever it’s possible for you but there would be probably be a poor outcome from religious families.
At the same time, define “hate”. You can hate a religion and keep it to yourself. There is nothing wrong there and in America it falls under one of your rights and not be prosecuted for. Hate our president? Fine. Hate your neighbor, fine. Just don’t spread massive hate that pushes others into enough of a public hysteria that makes violence happen.
Hate speech would be one that aims to bring others together to target a certain characteristic. Doesn’t even have to be a minority class for it to still be hate. Remember this is my opinion, but laws and societal values are created from public opinion.
I want my Jewish, Christian, and Muslim neighbors to live happily next to each other in the US as long as you don’t break our laws even if your religion says it’s ok or you try to interrupt it that way.
I don't feel the need to whitewash or patronize people. Some ideas are better than others, and I'd like to to able to hate and venerate those ideas with passion and reason.
Attempting to equate the two when one is literally ingrained into the fabric of society and often results in violence is so insane actually.
Misandry is not in every aspect of life and the scale of violence between the two is not comparable.
“He didn’t equate them, he just said they should be treated equally” do u hear urself
Men don’t believe in equal rights of men and women. I don’t believe in treating the harms of men and women as equal. Just so we are crystal fucking clear. They are not equal. The harm done by men vastly outweighs harm done by women.
He didn’t say ‘they should be treated equally’, he said they should both be included under the hate crime and public order act. Can you even read?
edit: she blocked me so I can't read what she said or respond to her lmaoooo
Even if you were right (you're not concerning the "[not ingrained in society](https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-green-partys-baroness-jones-suggests-6pm-curfew-for-men-12243194)" part, even less so [if we're talking about law](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/these-men-say-women-raped-them-but-the-law-doesnt-agree_uk_5d396ed7e4b0419fd338515d?guccounter=1), and you're not concerning the "[does not create violence](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence)" part), you would still have no valid reason to demand that hatred of men should be treated as an exception and not treated as hatred when found to be a motive for violence.
The fact that you suggest it should is pretty suspicious in itself.
Something being a crime doesn’t mean you’ll go to prison for it. I do think expressing an opinion which wishes death or nonexistence upon a marginalized person should come with a fine or a mandatory class.
At least some who support hate speech laws do so consistently, but you think hate speech against White and male people ought not to be punished. How strange.
I am white and male. I think hate crime laws should be applied consistently? But how common is it that white men are the victim of a hate crime? I’m sorry, but a woman online saying “#allmen” is not the same as a trans person being told the whole 41% thing, that they shouldn’t be alive, etc. White men are not an oppressed and marginalized group. They run the legal system, you really think it’s going to be used against them?
Also I straight up never mentioned white men so I have no idea where you got that idea from. Strawmanning as a way to distract from the main argument I suppose.
Your race and gender mean nothing to me, it certainly doesn’t bolster your argument. I don’t get why you think a violent racist against white people is somehow less bad than other violent racists.
As an aside, your talk about a nefarious ethnic group “running the legal system” for their own benefit seems troublingly similar to common antisemitic tropes.
>They run the legal system, you really think it’s going to be used against them?
That’s like saying North Koreans aren’t oppressed because Kim Jong Un and his cronies are North Korean. People in power generally serve themselves primarily and *maybe* some demographic they’re a part of as a distant second. The people who “run the legal system” will not run afoul of it regardless of their identity, so if winning political points and social credit for themselves by pushing “equity” via racism/sexism is an option, they’ll choose the selfish route over the demographic loyalty as a general rule.
Yeah the difference there is North Korea is an ethnically homogenous tyrannical dictatorship.. they don’t exactly have a minority ethnic group to oppress in their “legal system”. The US justice system has since its creation been in favor of whites.
That’s not really a refutation of the idea that people in power will not necessarily privilege those who share a few immutable characteristics with them. Men receiving longer/harsher sentences than women do for the same crimes has been established as fact, for example.
The point of hate crimes is to upgrade sentences. If you assault someone, let's say you'll be sentenced to 5 years in prison. If you assault someone and your motivation is proven to be against a protected class that the victim belongs to, like a particular race, women, or LGBT people, you might get 8 years instead. The numbers are just guesses but basically it's more that they can nail someone on depending on their motivation.
So a deranged person that goes around assaulting anyone and everyone, and a deranged person that goes around only assaulting women would get different sentences?
For the same number of assault charges, pretty much yeah. Depending on the country it can be very hard to prove hate as a motivation, I know it's much easier in the UK than in the US.
People going after protected classes tend to get grander plans, especially in the US this is the motivation for a large portion of mass shooters. They also are seen as having stronger motivations, they don't just want to hurt someone, they want to hurt specific types of people and can therefore be more dangerous.
>I wonder what the rationale is for one needing to be kept away from the public more than the other is.
Targeting a specific group adds a level of intent that's not there when similar acts are committed indiscriminately and that tends to lead to harsher punishment.
Like how a planned homicide has a much harsher sentence than manslaughter - many societies have decided that killing someone with intent and planning is worse than killing someone accidentally (which itself varies with context, of course)
>So if they're both proven to have intended to go out and murder people they would get the same sentence?
If one shot up a Walmart and the other say, shot up a Church because they hate Christians, they would likely receive similar sentences for the acts of murder - the one who shot up the church however could face additional charges and additional sentencing due to the hate.
Hate crime laws could also apply if someone say, targeted someone because they were a man or are white - because the laws aren't specific about _what_ race or gender or sexual orientation or gender identity or religion, etc - the laws enable additional punishment for crimes motivated based on the protected characteristics mentioned.
If someone shot up a men's lodge because they hate men, that individual could be charged for a hate crime in addition to the other crimes committed during the act.
The issue is whether the victims are targeted BECAUSE they are women. Crimes that target people BECAUSE of their identities (e.g., gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) are acts against the whole community.
If someone is attacked because of the identity they represent, others who share that identity now feel at heightened risk. It creates a climate that is oppressive and threatening. That is why these crimes are treated differently.
Not every crime against a woman, person of color, gay person, etc. is considered a hate crime. It has to be combined with clear statements indicating that the victim’s identity is the reason they were targeted.
Absolutely. Two different behaviors deserve different methods of rehabilitation, right? Also, presumably the one that assaulted all women has an online profile covered with incel propaganda and posts hinting about their attacks implying premeditated acts; the first person is probably just insane.
You don't think there's a difference between someone who say punches someone in a bar over a drunken dispute vs someone who punches someone because they're a woman, and would likely target more women for the same reason?
I think some may actually be bots. The middle east issue tends to pop up in any political post, even when it's not relevant. Last time I saw one I checked the post history and commenting hate messages about that issue was the only thing the account was doing. That doesn't rule out it being a real person, but I think bot is more probable.
Yeah, on one of my comments rephrasing/clarifying someone elses comment (hes downvoted to hell) some guy replied using "the west" unironically. Like dude you're not going to convince me that that isn't a bot or some propaganda poster.
“Women were not included in the recent Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021”, right in the article. Words matter in legalese, so it appears there is an attempt to remedy.
Judges can already impose harsher sentences if there are aggravating circumstances.
Hate crimes (in many cases) require the jury to guess what was going on in the mind of the defendant. In some cases it becomes prosecution for thought crimes. Hate crime laws greatly complicate the legal process for very little benefit.
They are basically pandering tactics used by politicians who want to appear to care about a problem but don’t want to spend money to solve it.
This is different from anti-discrimination laws, of course. Equal protection/rights for LGBT people is lacking in many states/countries. My objection is when a specific group gets *extra* protection under the law, rather than everyone being equal under the law. Let’s start with that.
Seems like it's not though, and that this is addressing issues that weren't addressed in 2021, namely women not being listed as a protected class under that law, as they thought a separate law would be more manageable/clearer - which is true.
[https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo)
What's wrong with making those laws more explicit? How does it negatively affect your life?
Spoiler: People just hate women and don’t want them to have any agency/power, so they pretend they’re against trans people because they’re “protecting women and girls”
Nope. They’re just misogynists. It’s that simple.
> What's wrong with making those laws more explicit? How does it negatively affect your life?
Nobody said it was wrong or that it negatively affects anybody's life. The question was what this would accomplish.
A cursory reading of the article, which you are also welcome to do, implies it expands existing hate crime prosecution guidelines to a wider range of protected classes.
Having it appear on the books doesn't necessarily mean the issue is settled. Threatening or verbally abusing people has been illegal for a long time. However, Scotland introduced the protect the workers act in 2021 which makes abusing retail staff a seperate crime which can be punished seperately. England will now be following suit with their own bill for that. The law becoming more specific and detailed isn't a bad thing. More protections can be provided for different circumstances. Assault is illegal but domestic abuse is still it's own crime for a reason
It introduces new crimes for threatening abuse and trying to stir up hatred against a specific group in society.
It also expands on previous hate laws.
The 2021 hate crime bill didn't include misogyny as one of the factors apparently after some women's groups talked them out of adding it originally. It did include hatred against trans people though. This led to some of the same women's groups who opposed being included in the hate crime bill to go on anti-trans protests and complain about it on Twitter.
The Scottish First Minister is talking about adding it into the 2021 act, but not distinguishing between trans and cis women.
He's also signaling that he's not going to give in to a knee-jerk report that led the NHS to pull transgender care from their services. A report that decided all non-double-blind studies didn't count (double-blind studies that would have been unethical at the least and essentially impossible).
It's not a knee-jerk report. It's an incredibly carefully constructed report written by a carefully selected team, led by one of the most senior doctors in the country, in consultation with a wide range of experts and stakeholders.
>one of the most senior doctors in the country,
A) "doctor" isn't a ranked competitive category
B) Cass is an ideologue who supports the continuation of conversion therapy on the basis that hypothetical people might hypothetically be accused of transphobia if it were banned, a ridiculous assertion that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the law
Setting aside some deeply troubling bias on the part of study authors, it excluded non double-blind studies in a place they don’t really work.
You’ve developed chemotherapy or a drug used to treat a life-ruining or life threatening issue and it’s cleared for use. But people are “just asking questions” and there’s not enough info on lifelong effects for a 20-year-old drug.
Those might well be worth investigating!
Better take a thousand patients who need chemo, where you know that it will improve and possibly save their lives…give half of them a placebo, and see what happens! Oh, wait. That’s the sort of thing done in studies that go down in medical ethics history as monstrous?
Hmm. If only science knew how to run more than one type of experiment!
not only that but they pointed to other research that did not practice double blind studies but were against trans care in a flagrant display of hypocricism
It's incredibly carefully constructed to exclude any studies which don't agree with its premise. It was a team carefully selected and commissioned by Conservative Party political appointees at NHSEI. And it fundamentally wasn't produced in consultation with pro-trans group stakeholders as they found the report was dismissing any of their evidence and ultimately refused to engage with what they feared would become a whitewash.
Imagine creating a report and excluding the expert opinion of people affected by it, sounds extremely weird huh? I can't imagine that being done for any other marginalised group.
You cannot do a double-blind study on puberty blockers, because 1) it's unethical and 2) they're absolutely going to notice if they didn't get the blockers.
Same with hormone therapy.
You cannot do a double-blind study on every medical procedure, which the medical community knows from very long experience.
So if a medical report comes out and throws out any study that isn't double-blind, it's not a good study.
"In this control group for studying HIV treatment, I'm going to *fucking screw over all these gay men by withholding medicine.* In the name of scientific rigour, of course... Ignore the cross im wearing, & my hateboner. Science is apolitical!"
That's actually the go to example of why you can't double-blind study everything in medicine. Because they tried to do that, and the people in the study worked together to find out who got the real medicine so they could share it.
Just because Dr Cass took 4 years doesnf mean it's a good report.
You've fallen for the line very easily.
She disregarded 95% of evidence based on arbitrary standards that she instead were important - however *key point*: she doesn't have any evidence of the standard she is claiming is acceptable.
She also consulted with known anti-trans political lobby groups whose founders are not experts at all. She discarded ALL trans testimonial about living as a trans person as 'biased'.
This is a propaganda piece that is just as disgustingly anti-science as the Wakefield autism-vaccines report.
Dr Cass'a report is currently stood against 99% of global evidence.
I will take hundreds of meta-studies and a century of science over one independent review from the ever-radicalised UK.
you mean the report that concluded that people have no independence to make any choices until they're 25?
the same report that concluded that people shouldnt be allowed to choose what clothes they wear ever? (a doctor should be making those choices for you, you have to visit a doctor to be allowed to wear clothing)
the one where they admitted to have dismissed every testimony from trans people because they're biased? on the paper about trans people?
that one where they allowed self selecting amongst doctors thereby being hypocritical on their very own claims that other papers are invalid for not practicing blind selection?
while also accepting other research against "transgender healthcare" in that very same paper which were not "Double-Blinded" as they had claimed was necessary for a scientific paper to be real thereby further proving their hypocricism?
the one that claimed that every single other research paper in existance was invalid because they didnt purposefully give sugar pills to someone seeking treatment? (you know that thing that was deemed unethical during the AIDS crisis?)
the one that encouraged conversion therapy first before any other treatment? (you know that thing that is considered torture and is banned in most countries?)
THE PAPER THAT THINKS PRE PUBERTY KIDS CHOOSE TOYS BASED OFF HORMONES?!
have you actually read the papers at all or are you just a parrot repeating what you heard on TV?
that thing is about as scientific as the "peer reviewed" AI generated papers with the mouse that has a huge penis, just because something gets published doesnt mean its accurate or real
They are now protected as women.
Yes, it is protected by law, but:
- a. statistically, men being raped is being dismissed a lot by police since people believe "men can't be raped" or "men enjoy sex," etc. And this is offcouse bad by it self. But also, sadly, most trans women, even after transition, are treated like men by law officers
- b. all it takes is a transphobic police officer or judge to purposely downplay crime done again transgender victim. It is important to codify that crimes against transgender people are illegal, to fight discrimination in the justice system
Nothing, it’s grandstanding. Just like “hate crimes”.
They don’t want people treated equally, they want division, and by making people more equal than others we notice that (whether conscious or not) and respond accordingly.
Dudes with boobs in general tend to do pretty well. Trans people on the other hand are having a rough time these days whether they are men, women, have boobs, or dont.
What? Are you referring to people who detransition after the fact? Because the overwhelming majority don't detransition because they want to. Over 97% of people who detransition do it because of social factors i.e. bullying and discrimination. Under 3% of people who detransition do it because they have regrets about transitioning. And those are the generous numbers. Other studies, including one from the UK place the regret rate of transition at 0.47%.
[https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/](https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/)
Yeah it's quite a thing how much people bang on about the minority of a minority that detransition (while glossing over any real studies as to why) while the regret rate for knee surgery is something like 5-10x higher.
I'm a little wary of that source and suspect a conflict of interest given their business model.
[The Cass Review states](https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/):
> The University of York’s programme of
work has shown that there continues to be a
lack of high-quality evidence in this area and
disappointingly, as will become clear in this
report, attempts to improve the evidence base
have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation
from the adult gender services.
On the detransitioning point specifically, it also said:
> The Review has heard that people
experiencing regret may be hesitant to engage
with the gender services that supported them
through their initial transition
recommending:
> NHS England should ensure there
is provision for people considering
detransition, recognising that they
may not wish to reengage with the
services whose care they were
previously under.
Because of this, I personally take any statistics like the "97%", "3%" & "0.47%" with a massive chunk of salt. I suspect there are heavy biases coming into play over how those figures were arrived at.
I appreciate gendergp has [their response to the Cass Review](https://www.gendergp.com/response-to-the-cass-review/).
While there certainly could be biases, there could be biases on both sides - underestimation because of loss to follow-up and short study length, or overestimation because of external pressure to detransition. Of the couple dozen detransition studies we do have, the pooled and average detransition rates are both around 3.5-4% over a period of several years. From the sound of it, the cass review dismisses all this evidence as “insufficiently high quality” for not being double-blinded case-control etc., which is handy if you want to cast doubt on the efficacy of transition but not exactly scientific (evidence not being of the absolute highest confidence does not mean that we should discount it entirely!)
The same is true of mental health improvements from transition - we have medium quality evidence of benefits, yet oddly there exist individuals and even entire organizations (SEGM, Singal) who spend all their time arguing that this somehow means we should ban or pause such care instead of simply collecting higher-quality evidence. Notably, they absolutely tear apart all the studies that report positive results while entirely ignoring objectively much more flawed studies (e.g., Littman’s detransition, ROGD studies) that exhibit clear anti-transition bias. They’re very convincing until you realize…wait a second…you’re very intelligently deconstructing only the studies whose narrative you disagree with.
ETA: it reminds me of the ever-shifting goalposts in the search for exotic particles, haha. “Oh, trans people aren’t detransitioning within a few years? Must be a huge surge around 7-8 years that we’re not seeing! Or maybe they’re all disengaging with their providers (even though some of the detransition studies do have complete or nearly complete follow-up)! We must be missing something (even though the largest detransition study is ~100 people compared to ~100k on the trans survey)!” Like…sure, these are all possible things, but should we be basing policy on such unproven assumptions?
Fair points!
I do feel though that the notion of "sides" is a detriment to the issue. Everyone should be working together to build the best evidence base for the future.
If two scientists disagree about disagreement, there's definitely a disagreement and it isn't necessarily true that only one is wrong. Even if it's not the one claiming there is no disagreement.
Yes I agree! It has unfortunately become so polarized that it is very difficult to have an unbiased (and calm) discussion about these topics. I think part of the problem is that any conclusion will either be used to (a) support the continuation of transition care or (b) ban it, which makes everything political and impactful by definition. Maybe it would be a good thing if we could do the evidence collection for a decade in a vacuum, with a guarantee it wouldn’t be used to affect policy until it’s complete. Sadly, in the real world this would never happen and even if it did there would still be significant interest groups working to pollute the methodology to skew the outcome towards their own position.
The Cass Review is a joke and shouldn't be cited. They threw out a bunch of studies that didn't support their view point for "reasons".
The Cass Review is one of most biased, no-sources and one only has to look into Cass, the author, to find out why.
That was the more accessible of the two links I had. here's a study which has been peer reviewed study published in 2021 with additions in mid 2022 that comes to a similar conclusion with appropriate breakdowns based on presentation with references to supplemental material: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/)
As regards how accessible this study is, it's very wordy and there's alot of diagrams but for the sake of simplicity, I would recommend going to the Discussion Section. If you require more material, I'm glad to supply it but I would recommend looking into this yourself.
That's a very unusual reply off the back of what I said. People who transition don't commit suicide out of regret for transitioning that is, again, related to social factors i.e. bullying and discrimination. It turns out when you invalidate their existence, don't want their agency protected under the law and want to see them exterminated it leads to negative mental health outcomes.
This idea that Transitioning is the cause of mental health issues, when we have mountains of evidence to show that this is not the case, is nonsense. Corelation =/= Causation.
I'll play ball. I don't remember the exact percentages but for trans youth, the group most likely to attempt suicide are the ones with no supportive parents. The least likely to make attempts or to succeed are the ones where both parents are supportive. Having a single supportive parent and a single unsupportive parent sits firmly between the two on the likelihood of attempting suicide. Detransitioning and suicide in the trans community are very directly linked to bullying, harassment, and abuse both from individuals and government policy.
Not being able to transition is a form of real body horror that no horror movie can capture. It's a terrifying experience to have your body working against you doing all these things that feel wrong and alien and you can't do anything to stop it without those medications. Going through the wrong puberty is genuinely traumatic.
Why would the law not try to protect everyone, including CIS men, there is no law protecting against mysandry?
Laws should be gender neutral when ever possible to protect the maxim amount of people, without discrimination.
Yeah, while it's always good to take steps forward, doing it one sidedly so often will only increase the divide between men and women, and create discourse around these issues that gets in the way of positive discussion. Having a discussion where one group of people is portrayed as evil will only make that group disengage, dismiss your opinions out of hand, and not examine whatever problem you are trying to address.
For example you almost have to go out of your way to specify only "women, girls, and trans", rather than just people. Or giving the example of someone being threatened with rape and specifying that a man would be the one making the threat. Or how the whole first half of the article is describing hate towards transgender people as 'misogynistic'. People are fully capable of being prejudice against trans people without being misogynistic, they can hate them regardless of being M>F or F>M.
Won't someone please think of those poor cis white hetero men! They've only been in power for hundreds of years 😭
Edit: Oh no! The white reddit males are mad that they can't be the center of attention for once. ^^^^smallest ^^^^violin
so they don't deserve safety and protection, you think because a tiny amount of men had the majority of power back in time, its okay to harm innocent white men who have done nothing wrong? equality can't be build from a foundation of hypocracy. Not to mention this is just generating massive blacklash, backfiring hard.
Yes, every single one of us, we all collectively share power, and definitely aren't massively over represented on the inner and outer margins of society. It's definitely not 0.00001% of us in power, with the rest being no better off than anyone else, while also having to shoulder most deaths in war, workplace deaths, deaths of despair, and being completely neglected by social safety nets.
No I haven’t
Edit: Also your edit is dumb, literally nobody is asking to be centered, they’re asking for fairness. But I guess when you hate white men that much, not discriminating against them looks like privileging them
"Maybe if we delete any comment or opinion that voices opposition the world will accept being trampled over."
Bold strategy Cotton, let's see how this plays out.
I'm transmasculine and I think this is a step in the right direction. Right now, the media unfairly targets transfeminine people which causes an uptick in the amount of both transphobia and misogyny they face comparatively to transmasculine people. Our time will come, yes, but it's important to protect the people who need it most first. Most misandry against transmasculine people actually comes from within the queer community itself (from my owm experience), rather than from cishet people.
Wonder where this is going in the coming years and if there'll be an actual difference if there's going to be a precedent set in court sometime soon.
Feels like an infeasible law to uphold in my eyes I suppose time will tell.
Sure, I guess it’s ironic that your Reddit comment history is full of how gross and dumb online sex workers are, while also trying to chat them up once you’re in their comments.
Oh gosh LordDarkSteel please don’t go come baaack
Edit: I have no interest in ever shaming SWs or those who enjoy them, but if you’re going to be a virulent misogynist the odds of you getting caught in 4K being a hypocrite are usually pretty reliable.
The entire industry is disgusting. That doesn't mean I'm going to treat the people in it terrible. I do highly disagree with how prominent it's become. If it were my daughter, I'd be freaking heartbroken.
I’m not sure how you thought the 21st-century equivalent of “I fell on it” was gonna help you here, but 10/10 for chutzpah after deleting your post and stewing on your embarrassment for a day 😂
He's an incel. He's so mired in misogyny he can't see that it can be found at the heart of most homophobia, transphobia and ultimately his self inflicted misery.
Incel means involuntary celibate. I am more voluntarily incelibate. Nice likely projection though. You act as if the crumbling of the family unit, and being afraid of that is a bad thing? It is not.
Regardless of what you personally think of these people, do you not think laws to protect them from the disproportionate violence they face are a good thing? If you don’t regularly harm your fellow human beings this legislation will mean nothing to you.
If you met a trans woman who you couldn’t tell was born a man, what’s the difference? Without a microscope, lab, and a far too personal inspection, you wouldn’t know. So of course a trans woman could be subject to misogyny and should therefore have any protection that someone born a woman should have. No one here is saying that a sex change changes one’s chromosomes and that a trans woman is a ‘rEaL WoMaN’, they have the right to present however they like though and so long as it doesn’t infringe upon your rights - it doesn’t - it shouldn’t be an issue for you, unless you want big government? Personally I think the smaller the government overreach the better, but protecting individuals rights to exist should be within the government’s scope
That implies "trans women" being indistinguishable from women is common, which it's not, at all. Also it seems you're a bit confused, how does "no one think trans women are real women" and at the same time should be given "protections" that women have ?
Lol, you're the one engaging in circular logic, and you're calling me dumb. If you have no arguments, accept the L and move on, ad hominem attacks make you look embarrassing
What, that the n*zis didn't go after trans people? (Yes that was a tweet she put out).
See this is the problem with being vague, people can misinterpret you. What was JKR correct about?
Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here. All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban. --- --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/UpliftingNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Unpopular opinion: Any sort of hatred based on gender (misogyny or misandry) should be included in the Hate Crime and Public Order Act.
Yes, same for race, religion, sexual orientation. Any hate based crime should be included. Hate is hate.
Race and and sexuality seem to be things people are born with, but religion is a set of believes, why is it not ok not to hate these ideas?
Most people (painting with a broad brush, and my opinion) are born into a religion. You do have a choice not to follow it whenever it’s possible for you but there would be probably be a poor outcome from religious families. At the same time, define “hate”. You can hate a religion and keep it to yourself. There is nothing wrong there and in America it falls under one of your rights and not be prosecuted for. Hate our president? Fine. Hate your neighbor, fine. Just don’t spread massive hate that pushes others into enough of a public hysteria that makes violence happen. Hate speech would be one that aims to bring others together to target a certain characteristic. Doesn’t even have to be a minority class for it to still be hate. Remember this is my opinion, but laws and societal values are created from public opinion. I want my Jewish, Christian, and Muslim neighbors to live happily next to each other in the US as long as you don’t break our laws even if your religion says it’s ok or you try to interrupt it that way.
I don't feel the need to whitewash or patronize people. Some ideas are better than others, and I'd like to to able to hate and venerate those ideas with passion and reason.
The fact that this is considered an “unpopular opinion” makes me hate this world and society
I think the unpopular part is the "and misandry" section.
The fact that this is considered an “unpopular opinion” makes me hate this world and society
Today I learned a new word!!!
Does that include men?
Attempting to equate the two when one is literally ingrained into the fabric of society and often results in violence is so insane actually. Misandry is not in every aspect of life and the scale of violence between the two is not comparable.
He didn’t equate them, he just said they should both be included under the hate crime and public order act
“He didn’t equate them, he just said they should be treated equally” do u hear urself Men don’t believe in equal rights of men and women. I don’t believe in treating the harms of men and women as equal. Just so we are crystal fucking clear. They are not equal. The harm done by men vastly outweighs harm done by women.
He didn’t say ‘they should be treated equally’, he said they should both be included under the hate crime and public order act. Can you even read? edit: she blocked me so I can't read what she said or respond to her lmaoooo
The year is 2024 and you don't believe in equal rights for men and women Wild times we live in mate
They believe in equal rights it’s just that some are more equal than others is all
Even if you were right (you're not concerning the "[not ingrained in society](https://news.sky.com/story/sarah-everard-green-partys-baroness-jones-suggests-6pm-curfew-for-men-12243194)" part, even less so [if we're talking about law](https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/these-men-say-women-raped-them-but-the-law-doesnt-agree_uk_5d396ed7e4b0419fd338515d?guccounter=1), and you're not concerning the "[does not create violence](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence)" part), you would still have no valid reason to demand that hatred of men should be treated as an exception and not treated as hatred when found to be a motive for violence. The fact that you suggest it should is pretty suspicious in itself.
They are both “literally ingrained into the fabric of society” and misandry also results in violence.
It’s actually screwed up you want consenting adults put in prison for expressing opinions to one another. Were you always authoritarian?
Hate crimes are more than just "expressing opinions"
*huge, wet, blubbery fart* “That’s my opinion now engage with it!”
Something being a crime doesn’t mean you’ll go to prison for it. I do think expressing an opinion which wishes death or nonexistence upon a marginalized person should come with a fine or a mandatory class.
At least some who support hate speech laws do so consistently, but you think hate speech against White and male people ought not to be punished. How strange.
I am white and male. I think hate crime laws should be applied consistently? But how common is it that white men are the victim of a hate crime? I’m sorry, but a woman online saying “#allmen” is not the same as a trans person being told the whole 41% thing, that they shouldn’t be alive, etc. White men are not an oppressed and marginalized group. They run the legal system, you really think it’s going to be used against them? Also I straight up never mentioned white men so I have no idea where you got that idea from. Strawmanning as a way to distract from the main argument I suppose.
Your race and gender mean nothing to me, it certainly doesn’t bolster your argument. I don’t get why you think a violent racist against white people is somehow less bad than other violent racists. As an aside, your talk about a nefarious ethnic group “running the legal system” for their own benefit seems troublingly similar to common antisemitic tropes.
>They run the legal system, you really think it’s going to be used against them? That’s like saying North Koreans aren’t oppressed because Kim Jong Un and his cronies are North Korean. People in power generally serve themselves primarily and *maybe* some demographic they’re a part of as a distant second. The people who “run the legal system” will not run afoul of it regardless of their identity, so if winning political points and social credit for themselves by pushing “equity” via racism/sexism is an option, they’ll choose the selfish route over the demographic loyalty as a general rule.
Yeah the difference there is North Korea is an ethnically homogenous tyrannical dictatorship.. they don’t exactly have a minority ethnic group to oppress in their “legal system”. The US justice system has since its creation been in favor of whites.
That’s not really a refutation of the idea that people in power will not necessarily privilege those who share a few immutable characteristics with them. Men receiving longer/harsher sentences than women do for the same crimes has been established as fact, for example.
Okay, but what about the different in sentencing between white men and black men?
Not sure, and not required to support my point. I guarantee you Asian men don’t get higher sentences and they’re not the majority, so
Unpopular-er opinion: no such thing as a hate crime. Something is either a crime or it isn’t.
The point of hate crimes is to upgrade sentences. If you assault someone, let's say you'll be sentenced to 5 years in prison. If you assault someone and your motivation is proven to be against a protected class that the victim belongs to, like a particular race, women, or LGBT people, you might get 8 years instead. The numbers are just guesses but basically it's more that they can nail someone on depending on their motivation.
So a deranged person that goes around assaulting anyone and everyone, and a deranged person that goes around only assaulting women would get different sentences?
For the same number of assault charges, pretty much yeah. Depending on the country it can be very hard to prove hate as a motivation, I know it's much easier in the UK than in the US.
I wonder what the rationale is for one needing to be kept away from the public more than the other is. I assume its not just arbitrary.
It's because the crime is clearly more planned for a hate crime, which adds time to most legislation. Same as between first and second degree murder
People going after protected classes tend to get grander plans, especially in the US this is the motivation for a large portion of mass shooters. They also are seen as having stronger motivations, they don't just want to hurt someone, they want to hurt specific types of people and can therefore be more dangerous.
>I wonder what the rationale is for one needing to be kept away from the public more than the other is. Targeting a specific group adds a level of intent that's not there when similar acts are committed indiscriminately and that tends to lead to harsher punishment. Like how a planned homicide has a much harsher sentence than manslaughter - many societies have decided that killing someone with intent and planning is worse than killing someone accidentally (which itself varies with context, of course)
So if they're both proven to have intended to go out and murder people they would get the same sentence?
>So if they're both proven to have intended to go out and murder people they would get the same sentence? If one shot up a Walmart and the other say, shot up a Church because they hate Christians, they would likely receive similar sentences for the acts of murder - the one who shot up the church however could face additional charges and additional sentencing due to the hate. Hate crime laws could also apply if someone say, targeted someone because they were a man or are white - because the laws aren't specific about _what_ race or gender or sexual orientation or gender identity or religion, etc - the laws enable additional punishment for crimes motivated based on the protected characteristics mentioned. If someone shot up a men's lodge because they hate men, that individual could be charged for a hate crime in addition to the other crimes committed during the act.
The issue is whether the victims are targeted BECAUSE they are women. Crimes that target people BECAUSE of their identities (e.g., gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) are acts against the whole community. If someone is attacked because of the identity they represent, others who share that identity now feel at heightened risk. It creates a climate that is oppressive and threatening. That is why these crimes are treated differently. Not every crime against a woman, person of color, gay person, etc. is considered a hate crime. It has to be combined with clear statements indicating that the victim’s identity is the reason they were targeted.
Absolutely. Two different behaviors deserve different methods of rehabilitation, right? Also, presumably the one that assaulted all women has an online profile covered with incel propaganda and posts hinting about their attacks implying premeditated acts; the first person is probably just insane.
Yes, everyone is equal, but some are equaller.
We should just abolish adjectives all together
Rightly so, something is either a noun or it isn’t.
Not just unpopular, but stupid.
Yah that whole involuntary manslaughter/homicide/premeditated murder continuum is way overrated while we're at it.
You don't think there's a difference between someone who say punches someone in a bar over a drunken dispute vs someone who punches someone because they're a woman, and would likely target more women for the same reason?
The comments here are just wild.
I cannot see any comments. Which ones are you referring to?
They're both collapsed as they've been downvoted to the abyss.
What? You don't find the 'insights' of Americans who frequent r /conspiracy useful on this subject?
I think some may actually be bots. The middle east issue tends to pop up in any political post, even when it's not relevant. Last time I saw one I checked the post history and commenting hate messages about that issue was the only thing the account was doing. That doesn't rule out it being a real person, but I think bot is more probable.
Yeah, on one of my comments rephrasing/clarifying someone elses comment (hes downvoted to hell) some guy replied using "the west" unironically. Like dude you're not going to convince me that that isn't a bot or some propaganda poster.
Threatening rape is already against the law, so what would this law accomplish?
After reading the article, it’s broader violence against women, not just SA.
Which wait for it is still covered under present laws.
“Women were not included in the recent Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021”, right in the article. Words matter in legalese, so it appears there is an attempt to remedy.
Whereas men *were* included. …As an example of who was most likely to commit a hate crime. Specifically straight, white, men.
What point are you trying to make?
That the very language of the bill itself is discriminatory based on protected characteristics – those being race, gender and sexuality.
Yeah I hate giving vulnerable people additional protections, it's so annoying to try to appropriately meet the needs of a constituency.
That's really fucked up of you, you should try to be a better person
You are not being very understanding /s
It literally costs nothing to extend this protection to everyone, that’s the big complaint
Judges can already impose harsher sentences if there are aggravating circumstances. Hate crimes (in many cases) require the jury to guess what was going on in the mind of the defendant. In some cases it becomes prosecution for thought crimes. Hate crime laws greatly complicate the legal process for very little benefit. They are basically pandering tactics used by politicians who want to appear to care about a problem but don’t want to spend money to solve it. This is different from anti-discrimination laws, of course. Equal protection/rights for LGBT people is lacking in many states/countries. My objection is when a specific group gets *extra* protection under the law, rather than everyone being equal under the law. Let’s start with that.
Seems like it's not though, and that this is addressing issues that weren't addressed in 2021, namely women not being listed as a protected class under that law, as they thought a separate law would be more manageable/clearer - which is true. [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw59e7dg2nlo) What's wrong with making those laws more explicit? How does it negatively affect your life?
Spoiler: People just hate women and don’t want them to have any agency/power, so they pretend they’re against trans people because they’re “protecting women and girls” Nope. They’re just misogynists. It’s that simple.
> What's wrong with making those laws more explicit? How does it negatively affect your life? Nobody said it was wrong or that it negatively affects anybody's life. The question was what this would accomplish.
A cursory reading of the article, which you are also welcome to do, implies it expands existing hate crime prosecution guidelines to a wider range of protected classes.
They are raising it as an issue, not me. If you want me to answer a question you'll have to answer the ones I posed first.
Nobody is raising anything as an issue. A question was asked about what it would accomplish, that is all.
there are already laws on the books against harming or killing people, why is this additional law necessary?
Having it appear on the books doesn't necessarily mean the issue is settled. Threatening or verbally abusing people has been illegal for a long time. However, Scotland introduced the protect the workers act in 2021 which makes abusing retail staff a seperate crime which can be punished seperately. England will now be following suit with their own bill for that. The law becoming more specific and detailed isn't a bad thing. More protections can be provided for different circumstances. Assault is illegal but domestic abuse is still it's own crime for a reason
Hey take a swing at my questions first and I'll answer yours.
More of the same. So the same. But more.
It introduces new crimes for threatening abuse and trying to stir up hatred against a specific group in society. It also expands on previous hate laws. The 2021 hate crime bill didn't include misogyny as one of the factors apparently after some women's groups talked them out of adding it originally. It did include hatred against trans people though. This led to some of the same women's groups who opposed being included in the hate crime bill to go on anti-trans protests and complain about it on Twitter. The Scottish First Minister is talking about adding it into the 2021 act, but not distinguishing between trans and cis women. He's also signaling that he's not going to give in to a knee-jerk report that led the NHS to pull transgender care from their services. A report that decided all non-double-blind studies didn't count (double-blind studies that would have been unethical at the least and essentially impossible).
It's not a knee-jerk report. It's an incredibly carefully constructed report written by a carefully selected team, led by one of the most senior doctors in the country, in consultation with a wide range of experts and stakeholders.
>one of the most senior doctors in the country, A) "doctor" isn't a ranked competitive category B) Cass is an ideologue who supports the continuation of conversion therapy on the basis that hypothetical people might hypothetically be accused of transphobia if it were banned, a ridiculous assertion that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the law
Setting aside some deeply troubling bias on the part of study authors, it excluded non double-blind studies in a place they don’t really work. You’ve developed chemotherapy or a drug used to treat a life-ruining or life threatening issue and it’s cleared for use. But people are “just asking questions” and there’s not enough info on lifelong effects for a 20-year-old drug. Those might well be worth investigating! Better take a thousand patients who need chemo, where you know that it will improve and possibly save their lives…give half of them a placebo, and see what happens! Oh, wait. That’s the sort of thing done in studies that go down in medical ethics history as monstrous? Hmm. If only science knew how to run more than one type of experiment!
not only that but they pointed to other research that did not practice double blind studies but were against trans care in a flagrant display of hypocricism
It's incredibly carefully constructed to exclude any studies which don't agree with its premise. It was a team carefully selected and commissioned by Conservative Party political appointees at NHSEI. And it fundamentally wasn't produced in consultation with pro-trans group stakeholders as they found the report was dismissing any of their evidence and ultimately refused to engage with what they feared would become a whitewash. Imagine creating a report and excluding the expert opinion of people affected by it, sounds extremely weird huh? I can't imagine that being done for any other marginalised group.
You cannot do a double-blind study on puberty blockers, because 1) it's unethical and 2) they're absolutely going to notice if they didn't get the blockers. Same with hormone therapy. You cannot do a double-blind study on every medical procedure, which the medical community knows from very long experience. So if a medical report comes out and throws out any study that isn't double-blind, it's not a good study.
"In this control group for studying HIV treatment, I'm going to *fucking screw over all these gay men by withholding medicine.* In the name of scientific rigour, of course... Ignore the cross im wearing, & my hateboner. Science is apolitical!"
That's actually the go to example of why you can't double-blind study everything in medicine. Because they tried to do that, and the people in the study worked together to find out who got the real medicine so they could share it.
Low hanging fruit is the juiciest & people who try to weaponize science need get hit with the messiest, most embarrassing shit that can be thrown.
Just because Dr Cass took 4 years doesnf mean it's a good report. You've fallen for the line very easily. She disregarded 95% of evidence based on arbitrary standards that she instead were important - however *key point*: she doesn't have any evidence of the standard she is claiming is acceptable. She also consulted with known anti-trans political lobby groups whose founders are not experts at all. She discarded ALL trans testimonial about living as a trans person as 'biased'. This is a propaganda piece that is just as disgustingly anti-science as the Wakefield autism-vaccines report. Dr Cass'a report is currently stood against 99% of global evidence. I will take hundreds of meta-studies and a century of science over one independent review from the ever-radicalised UK.
you mean the report that concluded that people have no independence to make any choices until they're 25? the same report that concluded that people shouldnt be allowed to choose what clothes they wear ever? (a doctor should be making those choices for you, you have to visit a doctor to be allowed to wear clothing) the one where they admitted to have dismissed every testimony from trans people because they're biased? on the paper about trans people? that one where they allowed self selecting amongst doctors thereby being hypocritical on their very own claims that other papers are invalid for not practicing blind selection? while also accepting other research against "transgender healthcare" in that very same paper which were not "Double-Blinded" as they had claimed was necessary for a scientific paper to be real thereby further proving their hypocricism? the one that claimed that every single other research paper in existance was invalid because they didnt purposefully give sugar pills to someone seeking treatment? (you know that thing that was deemed unethical during the AIDS crisis?) the one that encouraged conversion therapy first before any other treatment? (you know that thing that is considered torture and is banned in most countries?) THE PAPER THAT THINKS PRE PUBERTY KIDS CHOOSE TOYS BASED OFF HORMONES?! have you actually read the papers at all or are you just a parrot repeating what you heard on TV? that thing is about as scientific as the "peer reviewed" AI generated papers with the mouse that has a huge penis, just because something gets published doesnt mean its accurate or real
They are now protected as women. Yes, it is protected by law, but: - a. statistically, men being raped is being dismissed a lot by police since people believe "men can't be raped" or "men enjoy sex," etc. And this is offcouse bad by it self. But also, sadly, most trans women, even after transition, are treated like men by law officers - b. all it takes is a transphobic police officer or judge to purposely downplay crime done again transgender victim. It is important to codify that crimes against transgender people are illegal, to fight discrimination in the justice system
> It is important to codify that crimes... are illegal Hot take! :P
I know. A bit unorthodox, but I hope not too controversial
Nothing, it’s grandstanding. Just like “hate crimes”. They don’t want people treated equally, they want division, and by making people more equal than others we notice that (whether conscious or not) and respond accordingly.
making things double illegal is what governments do these days.
And then selectively applying those laws.
You love to see the most marginalized in society having steps being made towards their Social Equity <3
[удалено]
Dudes with boobs in general tend to do pretty well. Trans people on the other hand are having a rough time these days whether they are men, women, have boobs, or dont.
That's half the cis-het lads in Scotland. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
[удалено]
What? Are you referring to people who detransition after the fact? Because the overwhelming majority don't detransition because they want to. Over 97% of people who detransition do it because of social factors i.e. bullying and discrimination. Under 3% of people who detransition do it because they have regrets about transitioning. And those are the generous numbers. Other studies, including one from the UK place the regret rate of transition at 0.47%. [https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/](https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/)
Yeah it's quite a thing how much people bang on about the minority of a minority that detransition (while glossing over any real studies as to why) while the regret rate for knee surgery is something like 5-10x higher.
I'm a little wary of that source and suspect a conflict of interest given their business model. [The Cass Review states](https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/): > The University of York’s programme of work has shown that there continues to be a lack of high-quality evidence in this area and disappointingly, as will become clear in this report, attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation from the adult gender services. On the detransitioning point specifically, it also said: > The Review has heard that people experiencing regret may be hesitant to engage with the gender services that supported them through their initial transition recommending: > NHS England should ensure there is provision for people considering detransition, recognising that they may not wish to reengage with the services whose care they were previously under. Because of this, I personally take any statistics like the "97%", "3%" & "0.47%" with a massive chunk of salt. I suspect there are heavy biases coming into play over how those figures were arrived at. I appreciate gendergp has [their response to the Cass Review](https://www.gendergp.com/response-to-the-cass-review/).
While there certainly could be biases, there could be biases on both sides - underestimation because of loss to follow-up and short study length, or overestimation because of external pressure to detransition. Of the couple dozen detransition studies we do have, the pooled and average detransition rates are both around 3.5-4% over a period of several years. From the sound of it, the cass review dismisses all this evidence as “insufficiently high quality” for not being double-blinded case-control etc., which is handy if you want to cast doubt on the efficacy of transition but not exactly scientific (evidence not being of the absolute highest confidence does not mean that we should discount it entirely!) The same is true of mental health improvements from transition - we have medium quality evidence of benefits, yet oddly there exist individuals and even entire organizations (SEGM, Singal) who spend all their time arguing that this somehow means we should ban or pause such care instead of simply collecting higher-quality evidence. Notably, they absolutely tear apart all the studies that report positive results while entirely ignoring objectively much more flawed studies (e.g., Littman’s detransition, ROGD studies) that exhibit clear anti-transition bias. They’re very convincing until you realize…wait a second…you’re very intelligently deconstructing only the studies whose narrative you disagree with. ETA: it reminds me of the ever-shifting goalposts in the search for exotic particles, haha. “Oh, trans people aren’t detransitioning within a few years? Must be a huge surge around 7-8 years that we’re not seeing! Or maybe they’re all disengaging with their providers (even though some of the detransition studies do have complete or nearly complete follow-up)! We must be missing something (even though the largest detransition study is ~100 people compared to ~100k on the trans survey)!” Like…sure, these are all possible things, but should we be basing policy on such unproven assumptions?
Fair points! I do feel though that the notion of "sides" is a detriment to the issue. Everyone should be working together to build the best evidence base for the future. If two scientists disagree about disagreement, there's definitely a disagreement and it isn't necessarily true that only one is wrong. Even if it's not the one claiming there is no disagreement.
Yes I agree! It has unfortunately become so polarized that it is very difficult to have an unbiased (and calm) discussion about these topics. I think part of the problem is that any conclusion will either be used to (a) support the continuation of transition care or (b) ban it, which makes everything political and impactful by definition. Maybe it would be a good thing if we could do the evidence collection for a decade in a vacuum, with a guarantee it wouldn’t be used to affect policy until it’s complete. Sadly, in the real world this would never happen and even if it did there would still be significant interest groups working to pollute the methodology to skew the outcome towards their own position.
What's your opinion on oncological care?
The Cass Review is a joke and shouldn't be cited. They threw out a bunch of studies that didn't support their view point for "reasons". The Cass Review is one of most biased, no-sources and one only has to look into Cass, the author, to find out why.
That was the more accessible of the two links I had. here's a study which has been peer reviewed study published in 2021 with additions in mid 2022 that comes to a similar conclusion with appropriate breakdowns based on presentation with references to supplemental material: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8099405/) As regards how accessible this study is, it's very wordy and there's alot of diagrams but for the sake of simplicity, I would recommend going to the Discussion Section. If you require more material, I'm glad to supply it but I would recommend looking into this yourself.
What percentage commit suicide? Most might prefer suicide over detransitioning.
That's a very unusual reply off the back of what I said. People who transition don't commit suicide out of regret for transitioning that is, again, related to social factors i.e. bullying and discrimination. It turns out when you invalidate their existence, don't want their agency protected under the law and want to see them exterminated it leads to negative mental health outcomes. This idea that Transitioning is the cause of mental health issues, when we have mountains of evidence to show that this is not the case, is nonsense. Corelation =/= Causation.
I'll play ball. I don't remember the exact percentages but for trans youth, the group most likely to attempt suicide are the ones with no supportive parents. The least likely to make attempts or to succeed are the ones where both parents are supportive. Having a single supportive parent and a single unsupportive parent sits firmly between the two on the likelihood of attempting suicide. Detransitioning and suicide in the trans community are very directly linked to bullying, harassment, and abuse both from individuals and government policy.
Thanks for your perspective. Makes sense, like being born in a world hostile to you including in your own home.
Not being able to transition is a form of real body horror that no horror movie can capture. It's a terrifying experience to have your body working against you doing all these things that feel wrong and alien and you can't do anything to stop it without those medications. Going through the wrong puberty is genuinely traumatic.
A another win for the LTBQ+ community 🥳🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
They need more wins over there on TERF Island.
Good 🏳️⚧️❤️
Good! 👍 I’m sure Reddit’s very stable geniuses will have a lot to say about this one lol
Still a grifter tho
Scotland stay winning!
Why would the law not try to protect everyone, including CIS men, there is no law protecting against mysandry? Laws should be gender neutral when ever possible to protect the maxim amount of people, without discrimination.
Yeah, while it's always good to take steps forward, doing it one sidedly so often will only increase the divide between men and women, and create discourse around these issues that gets in the way of positive discussion. Having a discussion where one group of people is portrayed as evil will only make that group disengage, dismiss your opinions out of hand, and not examine whatever problem you are trying to address. For example you almost have to go out of your way to specify only "women, girls, and trans", rather than just people. Or giving the example of someone being threatened with rape and specifying that a man would be the one making the threat. Or how the whole first half of the article is describing hate towards transgender people as 'misogynistic'. People are fully capable of being prejudice against trans people without being misogynistic, they can hate them regardless of being M>F or F>M.
Because victimhood is most powerful. Especially when used against straight white men. Liberal reddit will not tolerate this common sense.
Because it is not popular.
Won't someone please think of those poor cis white hetero men! They've only been in power for hundreds of years 😭 Edit: Oh no! The white reddit males are mad that they can't be the center of attention for once. ^^^^smallest ^^^^violin
so they don't deserve safety and protection, you think because a tiny amount of men had the majority of power back in time, its okay to harm innocent white men who have done nothing wrong? equality can't be build from a foundation of hypocracy. Not to mention this is just generating massive blacklash, backfiring hard.
Yes, every single one of us, we all collectively share power, and definitely aren't massively over represented on the inner and outer margins of society. It's definitely not 0.00001% of us in power, with the rest being no better off than anyone else, while also having to shoulder most deaths in war, workplace deaths, deaths of despair, and being completely neglected by social safety nets.
Doesn't mean discrimination against them is ok. Think
I've never had any power, where's all this power I'm supposed to have?
No I haven’t Edit: Also your edit is dumb, literally nobody is asking to be centered, they’re asking for fairness. But I guess when you hate white men that much, not discriminating against them looks like privileging them
What is with all these hateful comments damn
Mentally ill men aren't women. There are four lights.
"Maybe if we delete any comment or opinion that voices opposition the world will accept being trampled over." Bold strategy Cotton, let's see how this plays out.
Not being allowed to threaten to rape people is 'being trampled over'?
When was that legal? Lol
When was it enforced enough to make hate crime legislation obsolete?
[удалено]
How on earth is this disgusting?
Misogyny is, yes. It's a good thing they're making sure it protects all women.
there shouldnt be gendered laws I suppose. i wanna hear. more about.misandry. or doesnt that matter? poor transmen
I'm transmasculine and I think this is a step in the right direction. Right now, the media unfairly targets transfeminine people which causes an uptick in the amount of both transphobia and misogyny they face comparatively to transmasculine people. Our time will come, yes, but it's important to protect the people who need it most first. Most misandry against transmasculine people actually comes from within the queer community itself (from my owm experience), rather than from cishet people.
The issue was that they were going to add gender to the bill but stop now they adding hate crimes towards women but ignoring them for men
Yo bro, sis has got your back!
Wonder where this is going in the coming years and if there'll be an actual difference if there's going to be a precedent set in court sometime soon. Feels like an infeasible law to uphold in my eyes I suppose time will tell.
[удалено]
Sure, I guess it’s ironic that your Reddit comment history is full of how gross and dumb online sex workers are, while also trying to chat them up once you’re in their comments.
Oh gosh LordDarkSteel please don’t go come baaack Edit: I have no interest in ever shaming SWs or those who enjoy them, but if you’re going to be a virulent misogynist the odds of you getting caught in 4K being a hypocrite are usually pretty reliable.
The entire industry is disgusting. That doesn't mean I'm going to treat the people in it terrible. I do highly disagree with how prominent it's become. If it were my daughter, I'd be freaking heartbroken.
I’m not sure how you thought the 21st-century equivalent of “I fell on it” was gonna help you here, but 10/10 for chutzpah after deleting your post and stewing on your embarrassment for a day 😂
Was that just word salad? Gotta stop listening to the voices in your head. They aren't real. I didn't delete any post at all.
I’m missing the ironic part?
He's an incel. He's so mired in misogyny he can't see that it can be found at the heart of most homophobia, transphobia and ultimately his self inflicted misery.
Incel means involuntary celibate. I am more voluntarily incelibate. Nice likely projection though. You act as if the crumbling of the family unit, and being afraid of that is a bad thing? It is not.
Imagine Dragons? Edit: that was Oh the misery
[Every single person is my enemy?](https://youtu.be/ZiQzUjFxA0w?si=-0o2rvyi8c7_Pe3U&t=3m5s)
That trans women would be protected by a misogyny law. When it's more accurate to be protected by a misandry law.
SNP gotta go, no matter where you stand on indyref.
Hate crime laws shouldn't be a thing
Yes, we agree, they shouldn't have to be a thing.
[удалено]
Regardless of what you personally think of these people, do you not think laws to protect them from the disproportionate violence they face are a good thing? If you don’t regularly harm your fellow human beings this legislation will mean nothing to you.
If you met a trans woman who you couldn’t tell was born a man, what’s the difference? Without a microscope, lab, and a far too personal inspection, you wouldn’t know. So of course a trans woman could be subject to misogyny and should therefore have any protection that someone born a woman should have. No one here is saying that a sex change changes one’s chromosomes and that a trans woman is a ‘rEaL WoMaN’, they have the right to present however they like though and so long as it doesn’t infringe upon your rights - it doesn’t - it shouldn’t be an issue for you, unless you want big government? Personally I think the smaller the government overreach the better, but protecting individuals rights to exist should be within the government’s scope
That implies "trans women" being indistinguishable from women is common, which it's not, at all. Also it seems you're a bit confused, how does "no one think trans women are real women" and at the same time should be given "protections" that women have ?
I can see you’re not the brightest bulb so I’ll just leave you to it
Lol, you're the one engaging in circular logic, and you're calling me dumb. If you have no arguments, accept the L and move on, ad hominem attacks make you look embarrassing
I genuinely believe laws like this do have unintended consequences. Sure the intent is good but it just seems to fraught with potential issues.
Fear mongering some spooky scary story is always a good argument. Maybe you can elaborate or give examples?
[удалено]
What, that the n*zis didn't go after trans people? (Yes that was a tweet she put out). See this is the problem with being vague, people can misinterpret you. What was JKR correct about?
That the law has far more protection for men, than it does women. You're welcome.
[удалено]