The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Noodle1982 said:
I had many conversations with him. My idea of Jehovah's being a friendly bunch that wake you up on a Sunday morning changed drastically. They are quite a sinister lot.
My point is of all the views they hold the one that would cause the biggest issue would be the whole misgendering.
They could tell a gay person that they think homosexuality is wrong. Ok, fine that's an opinion. You're not going to change their mind.
They could express their views on blood transfusions. People would be bemused.
They could explain how they shun members of their own family for various sins. That's religion for you, its bonkers.
All of these are expressing disapproval. They are a passive reaction (as in, they can express disapproval, but they can't do much about it). My point is of all the views they hold the one that would cause the biggest issue would be the whole misgendering.
They could tell a gay person that they think homosexuality is wrong. Ok, fine that's an opinion. You're not going to change their mind.
They could express their views on blood transfusions. People would be bemused.
They could explain how they shun members of their own family for various sins. That's religion for you, its bonkers.
If he was introduced to a gay man's husband, and retorted "No you're not! You're not his husband. You're just his friend. Because there is no such thing as being gay" then you'd quite rightly expect the husband to say "I *am* his husband, and I have the Marriage Certificate to prove it and it's backed up by UK law, you swivel-eyed loon". If every time he then saw the two men holding hands or displaying affection to each other, or even just in the vicinity of each other, he said that it was wrong and they should be ashamed, and should stop, then you wouldn't expect the gay couple to have to put up with that. That would be harassment, and you'd have a hard time arguing otherwise.
Noodle1982 said:
They could refuse to acknowledge someone by their chosen pronouns. Twitter outrage, police investigation, H.R dillema (if in the workplace), potential criminal case, possible fine....the list goes on.
The list goes on, and so do you. 
Unlike all your other examples, this one would be ongoing and active. It's the only one that is, in addition to disapproving of, he could be active and do something about, by continuously misgendering and dead-naming someone. It's an active persecution, rather than a passive disapproval. It's harassment.
They do however deny that a man can become a woman and vice versa.
Noodle1982 said:
Jehovah witnesses, and other religions, don't deny that homosexuality exists.
They do however deny that a man can become a woman and vice versa.
Right. They disapprove of homosexuality (passive reaction) but would have ongoing denial of transgender (active reaction). They do however deny that a man can become a woman and vice versa.
So your examples were a bit crap really. Because, as you have agreed, they'e not the same thing.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Noodle1982 said:
Jehovah witnesses, and other religions, don't deny that homosexuality exists.
They do however deny that a man can become a woman and vice versa.
Right. They disapprove of homosexuality (passive reaction) but would have ongoing denial of transgender (active reaction). They do however deny that a man can become a woman and vice versa.
So your examples were a bit crap really. Because, as you have agreed, they'e not the same thing.
Another poster had mentioned the Jehovah's dodgy beliefs and views. All of which, as you have pointed out, are passive reactions.
My whole point was that the transgender issue is an active reaction.
It's easy to have a conversation without mentioning someone's sexual preference or views on blood transfusions. It's quite difficult to have a conversation where male and female pronouns aren't used.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Right. They disapprove of homosexuality (passive reaction) but would have ongoing denial of transgender (active reaction).
So your examples were a bit crap really. Because, as you have agreed, they'e not the same thing.
I don’t agree with this. So your examples were a bit crap really. Because, as you have agreed, they'e not the same thing.
It is only passive because they do it to fit in, because it’s the law of the land, they are actively against it.
Personally I think the same would be true if they were in the workplace with a trans person.
It is not true to say they recognise homosexuality as anything other than an aboration, the same as transgenderism. Indeed I suspect Noodle got that Romans passage off the same website that pops up if you search JW and trans - it’s the top hit - and states also that they see it at homosexuality.
My point was a Jehovah witness can work with a homosexual person. He/she may not like them or agree with their ways but the sexuality of that person never needs to come up.
Granted if the Jehovah witness was to insult the gay person based on their sexuality then there's a problem. But its quite easy not to do that to keep things civil.
Now, the JW may have the same views towards a transgendered person. However, it's going to be a lot more difficult not to come across as offensive and keep things civil because they are not going to buy into the whole pronoun issue.
Granted if the Jehovah witness was to insult the gay person based on their sexuality then there's a problem. But its quite easy not to do that to keep things civil.
Now, the JW may have the same views towards a transgendered person. However, it's going to be a lot more difficult not to come across as offensive and keep things civil because they are not going to buy into the whole pronoun issue.
Noodle1982 said:
My point was a Jehovah witness can work with a homosexual person. He/she may not like them or agree with their ways but the sexuality of that person never needs to come up.
Granted if the Jehovah witness was to insult the gay person based on their sexuality then there's a problem. But its quite easy not to do that to keep things civil.
Now, the JW may have the same views towards a transgendered person. However, it's going to be a lot more difficult not to come across as offensive and keep things civil because they are not going to buy into the whole pronoun issue.
Ok, granted. I don't disagree. Granted if the Jehovah witness was to insult the gay person based on their sexuality then there's a problem. But its quite easy not to do that to keep things civil.
Now, the JW may have the same views towards a transgendered person. However, it's going to be a lot more difficult not to come across as offensive and keep things civil because they are not going to buy into the whole pronoun issue.
But your list seemed to be saying that of all the things listed, they all appeared to you to be no worse than each other, but the transgender one would cause the Twitter storm and accusations of harassment, with the implication being that this was unreasonable. Yet we now seem to have established that they aren't all the same.
Yes, it is going to be much harder for a JW to conceal their disapproval / much easier for them to make their disapproval evident on an ongoing basis.
Noodle1982 said:
My point was a Jehovah witness can work with a homosexual person. He/she may not like them or agree with their ways but the sexuality of that person never needs to come up.
Granted if the Jehovah witness was to insult the gay person based on their sexuality then there's a problem. But its quite easy not to do that to keep things civil.
Now, the JW may have the same views towards a transgendered person. However, it's going to be a lot more difficult not to come across as offensive and keep things civil because they are not going to buy into the whole pronoun issue.
Yes and my point that this is only because they have got with the times. Granted if the Jehovah witness was to insult the gay person based on their sexuality then there's a problem. But its quite easy not to do that to keep things civil.
Now, the JW may have the same views towards a transgendered person. However, it's going to be a lot more difficult not to come across as offensive and keep things civil because they are not going to buy into the whole pronoun issue.
My opinion is they would go with the flow on pronouns for the same reason they go with the flow on gays, and a bunch of other things, then go to Kingdom Hall and preach against it and excommunicate gay or trans people of their congregation and family if the need ever arose.
Obviously filter for 'christian' and 'Canada', but in essence this seems to be the wrong thing to do...just on intuition. Difficult.
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/dad-cannot-stop-...
https://www.christian.org.uk/news/dad-cannot-stop-...
Stuck in Kuwait for a while, got me thinking that it would be very interesting to see this topic debated anywhere but the internet here.
Law[edit]
The penal code contains some general provisions against debauchery and immorality that can be used to punish LGBT people.
Article 198 prohibits public immorality. In 2008, the law was expanded to also outlaw "imitating the appearance of a member of the opposite sex" with fines and or imprisonment.[1]
Maybe some parts of London already have this under Sharia?
Law[edit]
The penal code contains some general provisions against debauchery and immorality that can be used to punish LGBT people.
Article 198 prohibits public immorality. In 2008, the law was expanded to also outlaw "imitating the appearance of a member of the opposite sex" with fines and or imprisonment.[1]
Maybe some parts of London already have this under Sharia?
andysgriff said:
Stuck in Kuwait for a while, got me thinking that it would be very interesting to see this topic debated anywhere but the internet here.
Law[edit]
The penal code contains some general provisions against debauchery and immorality that can be used to punish LGBT people.
Article 198 prohibits public immorality. In 2008, the law was expanded to also outlaw "imitating the appearance of a member of the opposite sex" with fines and or imprisonment.[1]
Maybe some parts of London already have this under Sharia?
Isn't it great how the world is.Law[edit]
The penal code contains some general provisions against debauchery and immorality that can be used to punish LGBT people.
Article 198 prohibits public immorality. In 2008, the law was expanded to also outlaw "imitating the appearance of a member of the opposite sex" with fines and or imprisonment.[1]
Maybe some parts of London already have this under Sharia?
In some places, such as Kuwait as you mentioned you can get into some pretty serious trouble simply for being in the LGBT camp. Yet in other places, such as here, they have so many rights that you can get in trouble simply for calling them the wrong gender.
Noodle1982 said:
Isn't it great how the world is.
In some places, such as Kuwait as you mentioned you can get into some pretty serious trouble simply for being in the LGBT camp. Yet in other places, such as here, they have so many rights that you can get in trouble simply for calling them the wrong gender.
Maybe you should move to Kuwait. You would probably be less oppressed there. In some places, such as Kuwait as you mentioned you can get into some pretty serious trouble simply for being in the LGBT camp. Yet in other places, such as here, they have so many rights that you can get in trouble simply for calling them the wrong gender.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Noodle1982 said:
Isn't it great how the world is.
In some places, such as Kuwait as you mentioned you can get into some pretty serious trouble simply for being in the LGBT camp. Yet in other places, such as here, they have so many rights that you can get in trouble simply for calling them the wrong gender.
Maybe you should move to Kuwait. You would probably be less oppressed there. In some places, such as Kuwait as you mentioned you can get into some pretty serious trouble simply for being in the LGBT camp. Yet in other places, such as here, they have so many rights that you can get in trouble simply for calling them the wrong gender.
My experience of the Middle East is that that actually reasonably lax with all sorts unless you do a couple of things.
Take the piss and rub people's noses in it or annoy someone with wasta - then they'll use every device possible, including religious and cultural 'standards' to make sure they 'get you'.
Take the piss and rub people's noses in it or annoy someone with wasta - then they'll use every device possible, including religious and cultural 'standards' to make sure they 'get you'.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Noodle1982 said:
Do you disagree with what I posted?
I agree that there are places in the world where hatred and bigotry are enshrined in law.The fact that you use the word "simply" with regard to misgendering someone rather speaks volumes though.
We've seen on numerous occasions people getting into trouble simply for misgendering someone.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Noodle1982 said:
We've seen on numerous occasions people getting into trouble simply for misgendering someone.
No, not "simply". People have got into trouble for deliberately, maliciously, and repeatedly misgenderimg someone. Not for "simply" accidentally doing so. Simply - in a straightforward or plain manner.
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Noodle1982 said:
I didn't say a accidentally. I said simply.
Simply - in a straightforward or plain manner.
You could simply call someone a darkie or a limp-wristed bum-bandit, and that would be equally fine then? Simply - in a straightforward or plain manner.
I could simply call you a bigot, and that would also be fine?
Where have I said that it's fine to insult someone?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff