Transgender rights discussion

Alex99 said:
My understanding is she has some creative control over anything to do with Harry Potter, but I don't think she actually offers much these days and it's largely just her name being tacked on as it's her IP.

Hogwarts Legacy included a trans character and had the option for the player character to be trans too.
Click to expand...

That's true but I figured that game was fairly left field from the Hogwarts universe in general and she wasn't involved in the creation but I read she's going to be an exec producer on the new series.
 
SilentWitness said:
That's true but I figured that game was fairly left field from the Hogwarts universe in general and she wasn't involved in the creation but I read she's going to be an exec producer on the new series.
Click to expand...

I genuinely don't know a great deal about these things but I thought "executive producer" was pretty much just having your name tacked onto the credits?
 
Alex99 said:
I genuinely don't know a great deal about these things but I thought "executive producer" was pretty much just having your name tacked onto the credits?
Click to expand...

I think it can vary, sometimes they take a more active role and sometimes take a back seat like you say.
 
SilentWitness said:
I think it can vary, sometimes they take a more active role and sometimes take a back seat like you say.
Click to expand...

I doubt she'll try and use it as a mouthpiece for anything, if only because HBO simply won't let her. It's too big of a platform and at this point the show isn't being created for her audience.
 
Gehrman said:
Alright then.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know to be fair, I've not read the bill in full.

It just seemed to be classically fantastical from her as to what she was doing and what she was likely to fall victim to in terms of punishment.

I'm not even talking as someone who's a massive ally or something like that, the debate barely registers at all in my thinking on a regular basis.
 
africanspur said:
I honestly don't know to be fair, I've not read the bill in full.

It just seemed to be classically fantastical from her as to what she was doing and what she was likely to fall victim to in terms of punishment.

I'm not even talking as someone who's a massive ally or something like that, the debate barely registers at all in my thinking on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

She has a persecution complex like many other TERFs and transphobes. She's an extremely wealthy and rather powerful person, but has a constant need to make herself the victim in this manufactured struggle.
 
Mike Smalling said:
She has a persecution complex like many other TERFs and transphobes. She's an extremely wealthy and rather powerful person, but has a constant need to make herself the victim in this manufactured struggle.
Click to expand...

Well she is wealthy and famous, but would it be outrageous to suggest that the thousands of death threats, descriptions of mutilation they want to do on her might make her less diplomatic? Also I think she would like to see this going to court because, A: she believes the bill infringes free speech thereby free thought. B: She is a world wide celebrity, putting her on court would put immense amount of scrutiny on the new bill. C: She is rich, she can afford the best lawyers on earth, so she can create scrutiny on the law whilst getting the best deal.
 
Gehrman said:
Well she is wealthy and famous, but would it be outrageous to suggest that the thousands of death threats, descriptions of mutilation they want to do on her might make her less diplomatic? Also I think she would like to see this going to court because, A: she believes the bill infringes free speech thereby free thought. B: She is a world wide celebrity, putting on her court would put immense amount of scrutiny on the new bill. C: She is rich, she can afford the best lawyers on earth, so she can create scrutiny on the law whilst getting the best deal.
Click to expand...

I can't speak to the amount of death threats and other vile messages she gets online, but of course that's never ok. Full stop. That doesn't happen in a vacuum though. She started out with mild transphobia, and has since doubled, tripled, quadrupled down to the point of allying herself with some truly vile people. People like her always like to roll out the "We're just saying biological sex is real" or "We're just protecting free speech", when that is not even remotely close to what they are actually doing. They are contributing to spreading hate and causing actual harm to a group of people that are already exposed.

She's flat out pathetic, and I have zero sympathy for her.
 
africanspur said:
I honestly don't know to be fair, I've not read the bill in full.

It just seemed to be classically fantastical from her as to what she was doing and what she was likely to fall victim to in terms of punishment.

I'm not even talking as someone who's a massive ally or something like that, the debate barely registers at all in my thinking on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents

I think this is it,


4Offences of stirring up hatred
(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person—

(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or

(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and

(b)either—

(i)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or

(ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pick the bones out of that.

lawyers are going to love this.
 
Last edited:
Don't Kill Bill said:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents

I think this is it,


4Offences of stirring up hatred
(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person—

(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or

(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and

(b)either—

(i)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or

(ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pick the bones out of that.

lawyers are going to love this.
Click to expand...

Of course of its doing the rounds that the main author of this bill rather insultingly laments the fact that the majority of the scottish parliament is white in a country where 97% of the population is white.

 
Don't Kill Bill said:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2021/14/contents

I think this is it,


4Offences of stirring up hatred
(1)A person commits an offence if—

(a)the person—

(i)behaves in a manner that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or

(ii)communicates to another person material that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening, abusive or insulting, and

(b)either—

(i)in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins, or

(ii)a reasonable person would consider the behaviour or the communication of the material to be likely to result in hatred being stirred up against such a group.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pick the bones out of that.

lawyers are going to love this.
Click to expand...

Does this mean i can online abuse @Mr Pigeon from my safe haven in Denmark and compare him to a fat bald bird that's eats shit off the pavement but if he strikes back and calls me fat bald gerbil then he'll go to jail for 7 years?
 
Last edited:
This Bill is no worse than the anti protest legislation coming from the UK Parliament, or even the way anti terror laws can be applied, or even the 1986 Public Order Act. Or even the new proposed anti homeless Bill.

Anyway I hope J K Rowling's outburst is ignored and she is left screaming into the void created by Elon Musk.
 
Gehrman said:
Does this mean i can online abuse @Mr Pigeon from my safe haven in Denmark and compare him to a fat bald bird that's eats shit off the pavement but if he strikes back and calls me fat bald gerbil then he'll go to jail for 7 years?
Click to expand...
Ha jokes on you, I wax my carrot whenever someone insults me.
 
hobbers said:
The issue comes with including the word insulting. Because an individual or group feeling insulted should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Obviously.

And the police have had no training on what is meant by "insulting" or what constitutes a "reasonable person".
Click to expand...

Agreed,

We can pretend that the police will judge this impartially and only in an extreme case prosecute but how realistic is that pretense? The police are an arm of government and will try to enforce the wishes of the govt which means the people the government doesn't like saying things they don't agree with and so undermining their authority will be prosecuted while those doing their bidding even in exactly reciprocally the same terms will get a pass.

Then try to second guess what the government will prosecute so self sensor to the safest factor and welcome to the SNP created autocracy.

It is sad and bad and destined to failure, I think.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
Agreed,

We can pretend that the police will judge this impartially and only in an extreme case prosecute but how realistic is that pretense? The police are an arm of government and will try to enforce the wishes of the govt which means the people the government doesn't like saying things they don't agree with and so undermining their authority will be prosecuted while those doing their bidding even in exactly reciprocally the same terms will get a pass.

Then try to second guess what the government will prosecute so self sensor to the safest factor and welcome to the SNP created autocracy.

It is sad and bad and destined to failure, I think.
Click to expand...

This is an expansion of the Public Order Act 1986, so your best bet would probably be to look at how Scotland has treated racial hatred in particular for the last 40 years, and extrapolate from there.
 
Frosty said:
This Bill is no worse than the anti protest legislation coming from the UK Parliament, or even the way anti terror laws can be applied, or even the 1986 Public Order Act. Or even the new proposed anti homeless Bill.


1,
I think you are wrong as this law is obviously greater in scope as it encompasses private conversations and all public declarations whether in a protest or in your own home or on social media.


Anyway I hope J K Rowling's outburst is ignored and she is left screaming into the void created by Elon Musk.
Click to expand...

2,
She wont be prosecuted because she is a multimillionaire and her legal council would trounce the legislation for the feck whitted nature of it inception.

Meanwhile some poor bugger is going to have their life trashed because some echo chambered wanker can't take a joke and millions will be spent going through the politically motivated referee playing bullshit of the extremists on both side of the political divide.
 
NotThatSoph said:
This is an expansion of the Public Order Act 1986, so your best bet would probably be to look at how Scotland has treated racial hatred in particular for the last 40 years, and extrapolate from there.
Click to expand...

The political mandate to do that is what ? Who, if we are honest voted for/wanted this?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The political mandate to do that is what ? Who, if we are honest voted for/wanted this?
Click to expand...

The same as any other thing voted on, but that wasn't the topic. You talked about autocracy and wondered how the police will treat this, and the answer is that you have 40 years of history to look back on to give an idea. For instance:

Meanwhile some poor bugger is going to have their life trashed because some echo chambered wanker can't take a joke and millions will be spent going through the politically motivated referee playing bullshit of the extremists on both side of the political divide.
Click to expand...

How many times has this happened since 1987?
 
NotThatSoph said:
This is an expansion of the Public Order Act 1986, so your best bet would probably be to look at how Scotland has treated racial hatred in particular for the last 40 years, and extrapolate from there.
Click to expand...
Indeed, and seems to use similar language to that original with regards to 'insulting', 'threatening' and 'abusive'.

Seems to me as simply an addendum to an already existing piece of legislation, which given the era overlooked a cultural / diversity aspect. Open to correction on my interpretation though.
 
hobbers said:
The issue comes with including the word insulting. Because an individual or group feeling insulted should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Obviously.

And the police have had no training on what is meant by "insulting" or what constitutes a "reasonable person".
Click to expand...

The law is always open to interpretation. From insult and even physical alterations could at some lesser extent be in a gray area.

A pat in the back of an officer could still constitute as a physical offence, it's up to the law to interpret. You really can't cover all aspect in the wording of a law.

And thankfully in most cases the judicial system is still functional they have most of the time enough common sense to decide in matters.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
The political mandate to do that is what ? Who, if we are honest voted for/wanted this?
Click to expand...
Yeah, feck giving LGBQT+, old and disabled people protections, who the feck wants them to have that anyway? Goddamn tyrannical SNP with their laws meant to protect minorities.
 
Halftrack said:
Yeah, feck giving LGBQT+, old and disabled people protections, who the feck wants them to have that anyway? Goddamn tyrannical SNP with their laws meant to protect minorities.
Click to expand...

Increasing censorship and the powers of the police always works out well for minorities....
 
hobbers said:
The issue comes with including the word insulting. Because an individual or group feeling insulted should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Obviously.

And the police have had no training on what is meant by "insulting" or what constitutes a "reasonable person".
Click to expand...
I hope they've had the training, the term reasonable person has been used In law since the 1900s
 
hobbers said:
But has anyone defined reasonable person in the context of demented people who live on twitter.
Click to expand...

From my time on the internet it seems that what people consider reasonable is very subjective up to a point at least.
ChatGPT

What is deemed a reasonable person in law in Scotland in 2024?



ChatGPT
As of my last update in January 2022, the concept of the "reasonable person" in law is a common one across legal systems, including in Scotland. The reasonable person standard is used to evaluate the behavior or actions of individuals in various legal contexts, such as negligence, contract law, and criminal law.
In Scotland, as in other jurisdictions, the reasonable person is typically understood to be an objective standard. It refers to how a hypothetical average person would behave or react in a given situation. The standard takes into account the circumstances surrounding a particular case but does not consider the specific characteristics or subjective beliefs of the individual involved.
The exact definition and application of the reasonable person standard may vary depending on the specific legal context and the facts of the case at hand. Courts in Scotland would assess whether the actions or conduct of an individual meet the standard of what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. This assessment helps determine issues such as liability, fault, or culpability.
For the most accurate and up-to-date information on the concept of the reasonable person in Scottish law in 2024, it would be advisable to consult legal resources or experts familiar with recent developments in Scottish jurisprudence.



You
Is what is considered reasonable highly subjective in a modern multicultural progressive society?


ChatGPT
The concept of what is considered reasonable can indeed be influenced by cultural, social, and progressive factors in a modern multicultural society. Different cultural backgrounds, social norms, and evolving societal values can shape individuals' perceptions of what constitutes reasonable behavior.
In a multicultural society, there may be diverse perspectives on what is acceptable or appropriate conduct in various situations. What one group or individual considers reasonable behavior may differ from another's perspective. This diversity of viewpoints can sometimes lead to challenges in legal contexts where the reasonable person standard is applied.
Moreover, as societies progress and evolve, societal norms and values can shift over time. What was considered reasonable behavior in the past may no longer be viewed as such in a more progressive society. This evolution can influence legal interpretations and judgments regarding what constitutes reasonable conduct.
In light of these factors, legal systems must often adapt to reflect the changing societal landscape. Courts may consider a broader range of perspectives and cultural factors when applying the reasonable person standard. Additionally, legal frameworks may incorporate principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that judgments reflect the values and norms of a multicultural society.
Ultimately, while the concept of reasonableness may have some subjective elements influenced by cultural and societal factors, legal systems aim to apply the standard in a fair and objective manner, taking into account the context and circumstances of each case.



You
Is the subjectivity of what is reasonable and insulting problematic in new hate speech laws in scotland?


ChatGPT
The subjectivity inherent in determining what is considered reasonable or insulting can indeed pose challenges in the context of hate speech laws in Scotland, as in any jurisdiction. Hate speech laws aim to protect individuals and groups from targeted discrimination, harassment, or violence based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
However, the interpretation of what constitutes hate speech often involves assessing whether certain speech or expression crosses the line from legitimate discourse into harmful or discriminatory behavior. This assessment may involve subjective judgments about the intent, impact, and context of the speech in question.
In Scotland, as in many other countries, hate speech laws must strike a delicate balance between protecting individuals' rights to freedom of expression and safeguarding vulnerable groups from harm. The subjectivity inherent in determining what speech is reasonable or insulting can complicate this balancing act.
Critics of hate speech laws sometimes argue that subjective interpretations of what constitutes hate speech may lead to censorship or the stifling of legitimate debate and expression. They may also express concerns about the potential for selective enforcement or chilling effects on free speech.
Supporters of hate speech laws, on the other hand, argue that such laws are necessary to combat discrimination, promote social cohesion, and protect marginalized groups from harm. They may emphasize the importance of addressing the broader societal context of discrimination and inequality when evaluating the impact of hate speech.
In navigating these complexities, legal systems often provide guidelines, principles, and precedents to help courts and law enforcement officials apply hate speech laws in a manner consistent with legal standards and human rights principles. Additionally, ongoing dialogue, education, and engagement with affected communities can help inform the development and implementation of hate speech laws in a way that respects both freedom of expression and the rights of marginalized groups.



You
Is it hatefull to say that Men cannot become Women and vice versa?


ChatGPT
The statement "Men cannot become Women and vice versa" can be seen as contentious and potentially hurtful to transgender individuals. It's important to understand that gender identity is a deeply personal and complex aspect of an individual's identity.
Transgender people identify with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, a transgender woman is someone who identifies and lives as a woman but was assigned male at birth. Similarly, a transgender man is someone who identifies and lives as a man but was assigned female at birth.
When someone asserts that "Men cannot become Women and vice versa," they are disregarding the validity of transgender people's gender identities and experiences. This assertion can contribute to the stigmatization and marginalization of transgender individuals, which can have harmful consequences for their mental health, well-being, and social acceptance.
It's essential to approach discussions about gender identity with empathy, respect, and an understanding of the diversity of human experiences. Using language that affirms transgender people's identities and respects their dignity is crucial in fostering a more inclusive and compassionate society.



You
You assigned male or female as birth as ifs subjective, why do you do that? You are born male or female?


ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. When I mentioned "assigned male or female at birth," I was referring to the sex assigned to individuals based on physical characteristics such as genitalia. This assignment is typically made by medical professionals shortly after birth and is based on observable biological traits.
However, it's important to recognize that biological sex is not always a straightforward binary concept. Intersex individuals are born with variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. Additionally, gender identity, which is a deeply felt sense of being male, female, or something else, may not necessarily align with the sex assigned at birth.
Transgender individuals may undergo a process of gender transition to align their outward appearance and social roles with their gender identity. This process may involve medical interventions, such as hormone therapy or surgery, as well as changes in personal and social identity.
So while individuals are typically assigned a sex at birth based on physical characteristics, it's essential to recognize the complexities of sex and gender and to approach discussions about gender identity with sensitivity and respect for individual experiences.

You
Could the new hate speech law in Scotland be weaponized against individuals who dont believe in gender fluidity?


ChatGPT
The implementation of hate speech laws, including those related to gender identity, is a complex and sensitive issue. It's crucial for such laws to balance protecting marginalized groups from harm while also safeguarding freedom of expression and ensuring that legitimate debate and dissent can occur without fear of censorship.
In the context of Scotland's hate speech laws, which aim to protect individuals from discrimination and harassment based on characteristics such as gender identity, there may be concerns about the potential for misuse or abuse. It's possible that individuals who express skepticism or disagreement with concepts such as gender fluidity could face accusations of hate speech under certain interpretations of the law.
However, it's important to note that hate speech laws typically include safeguards to protect freedom of expression and require a careful assessment of the context, intent, and impact of the speech in question. Mere disagreement or skepticism about certain concepts, including gender fluidity, would not typically qualify as hate speech unless it incites violence, promotes discrimination, or constitutes harassment against individuals based on their gender identity.
Moreover, legal systems often rely on principles of proportionality and reasonableness in interpreting and applying hate speech laws. This means that expressions of dissent or differing opinions should generally be protected unless they cross the threshold into harmful or discriminatory behavior.
It's also essential for lawmakers, legal authorities, and civil society to engage in ongoing dialogue and education about the interpretation and application of hate speech laws. Transparency, clarity, and accountability in the enforcement of these laws can help mitigate concerns about potential misuse or censorship while upholding the rights and dignity of marginalized groups.
 
Last edited:
Gehrman said:
From my time on the internet it seems that what people consider reasonable is very subjective up to a point at least.
ChatGPT

What is deemed a reasonable person in law in Scotland in 2024?



ChatGPT
As of my last update in January 2022, the concept of the "reasonable person" in law is a common one across legal systems, including in Scotland. The reasonable person standard is used to evaluate the behavior or actions of individuals in various legal contexts, such as negligence, contract law, and criminal law.
In Scotland, as in other jurisdictions, the reasonable person is typically understood to be an objective standard. It refers to how a hypothetical average person would behave or react in a given situation. The standard takes into account the circumstances surrounding a particular case but does not consider the specific characteristics or subjective beliefs of the individual involved.
The exact definition and application of the reasonable person standard may vary depending on the specific legal context and the facts of the case at hand. Courts in Scotland would assess whether the actions or conduct of an individual meet the standard of what a reasonable person would do under similar circumstances. This assessment helps determine issues such as liability, fault, or culpability.
For the most accurate and up-to-date information on the concept of the reasonable person in Scottish law in 2024, it would be advisable to consult legal resources or experts familiar with recent developments in Scottish jurisprudence.



You
Is what is considered reasonable highly subjective in a modern multicultural progressive society?


ChatGPT
The concept of what is considered reasonable can indeed be influenced by cultural, social, and progressive factors in a modern multicultural society. Different cultural backgrounds, social norms, and evolving societal values can shape individuals' perceptions of what constitutes reasonable behavior.
In a multicultural society, there may be diverse perspectives on what is acceptable or appropriate conduct in various situations. What one group or individual considers reasonable behavior may differ from another's perspective. This diversity of viewpoints can sometimes lead to challenges in legal contexts where the reasonable person standard is applied.
Moreover, as societies progress and evolve, societal norms and values can shift over time. What was considered reasonable behavior in the past may no longer be viewed as such in a more progressive society. This evolution can influence legal interpretations and judgments regarding what constitutes reasonable conduct.
In light of these factors, legal systems must often adapt to reflect the changing societal landscape. Courts may consider a broader range of perspectives and cultural factors when applying the reasonable person standard. Additionally, legal frameworks may incorporate principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion to ensure that judgments reflect the values and norms of a multicultural society.
Ultimately, while the concept of reasonableness may have some subjective elements influenced by cultural and societal factors, legal systems aim to apply the standard in a fair and objective manner, taking into account the context and circumstances of each case.



You
Is the subjectivity of what is reasonable and insulting problematic in new hate speech laws in scotland?


ChatGPT
The subjectivity inherent in determining what is considered reasonable or insulting can indeed pose challenges in the context of hate speech laws in Scotland, as in any jurisdiction. Hate speech laws aim to protect individuals and groups from targeted discrimination, harassment, or violence based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
However, the interpretation of what constitutes hate speech often involves assessing whether certain speech or expression crosses the line from legitimate discourse into harmful or discriminatory behavior. This assessment may involve subjective judgments about the intent, impact, and context of the speech in question.
In Scotland, as in many other countries, hate speech laws must strike a delicate balance between protecting individuals' rights to freedom of expression and safeguarding vulnerable groups from harm. The subjectivity inherent in determining what speech is reasonable or insulting can complicate this balancing act.
Critics of hate speech laws sometimes argue that subjective interpretations of what constitutes hate speech may lead to censorship or the stifling of legitimate debate and expression. They may also express concerns about the potential for selective enforcement or chilling effects on free speech.
Supporters of hate speech laws, on the other hand, argue that such laws are necessary to combat discrimination, promote social cohesion, and protect marginalized groups from harm. They may emphasize the importance of addressing the broader societal context of discrimination and inequality when evaluating the impact of hate speech.
In navigating these complexities, legal systems often provide guidelines, principles, and precedents to help courts and law enforcement officials apply hate speech laws in a manner consistent with legal standards and human rights principles. Additionally, ongoing dialogue, education, and engagement with affected communities can help inform the development and implementation of hate speech laws in a way that respects both freedom of expression and the rights of marginalized groups.



You
Is it hatefull to say that Men cannot become Women and vice versa?


ChatGPT
The statement "Men cannot become Women and vice versa" can be seen as contentious and potentially hurtful to transgender individuals. It's important to understand that gender identity is a deeply personal and complex aspect of an individual's identity.
Transgender people identify with a gender that is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. For example, a transgender woman is someone who identifies and lives as a woman but was assigned male at birth. Similarly, a transgender man is someone who identifies and lives as a man but was assigned female at birth.
When someone asserts that "Men cannot become Women and vice versa," they are disregarding the validity of transgender people's gender identities and experiences. This assertion can contribute to the stigmatization and marginalization of transgender individuals, which can have harmful consequences for their mental health, well-being, and social acceptance.
It's essential to approach discussions about gender identity with empathy, respect, and an understanding of the diversity of human experiences. Using language that affirms transgender people's identities and respects their dignity is crucial in fostering a more inclusive and compassionate society.



You
You assigned male or female as birth as ifs subjective, why do you do that? You are born male or female?


ChatGPT
I apologize for any confusion. When I mentioned "assigned male or female at birth," I was referring to the sex assigned to individuals based on physical characteristics such as genitalia. This assignment is typically made by medical professionals shortly after birth and is based on observable biological traits.
However, it's important to recognize that biological sex is not always a straightforward binary concept. Intersex individuals are born with variations in sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of male or female. Additionally, gender identity, which is a deeply felt sense of being male, female, or something else, may not necessarily align with the sex assigned at birth.
Transgender individuals may undergo a process of gender transition to align their outward appearance and social roles with their gender identity. This process may involve medical interventions, such as hormone therapy or surgery, as well as changes in personal and social identity.
So while individuals are typically assigned a sex at birth based on physical characteristics, it's essential to recognize the complexities of sex and gender and to approach discussions about gender identity with sensitivity and respect for individual experiences.

You
Could the new hate speech law in Scotland be weaponized against individuals who dont believe in gender fluidity?


ChatGPT
The implementation of hate speech laws, including those related to gender identity, is a complex and sensitive issue. It's crucial for such laws to balance protecting marginalized groups from harm while also safeguarding freedom of expression and ensuring that legitimate debate and dissent can occur without fear of censorship.
In the context of Scotland's hate speech laws, which aim to protect individuals from discrimination and harassment based on characteristics such as gender identity, there may be concerns about the potential for misuse or abuse. It's possible that individuals who express skepticism or disagreement with concepts such as gender fluidity could face accusations of hate speech under certain interpretations of the law.
However, it's important to note that hate speech laws typically include safeguards to protect freedom of expression and require a careful assessment of the context, intent, and impact of the speech in question. Mere disagreement or skepticism about certain concepts, including gender fluidity, would not typically qualify as hate speech unless it incites violence, promotes discrimination, or constitutes harassment against individuals based on their gender identity.
Moreover, legal systems often rely on principles of proportionality and reasonableness in interpreting and applying hate speech laws. This means that expressions of dissent or differing opinions should generally be protected unless they cross the threshold into harmful or discriminatory behavior.
It's also essential for lawmakers, legal authorities, and civil society to engage in ongoing dialogue and education about the interpretation and application of hate speech laws. Transparency, clarity, and accountability in the enforcement of these laws can help mitigate concerns about potential misuse or censorship while upholding the rights and dignity of marginalized groups.
Click to expand...
Chatgpu... The world is ending and you're wrong, in law, a reasonable person is quite simple and your AI has over complicated it so what. When I started studying law the first lesson was to never use Google to answer a legal question, I now see why.
 
My experience working in children’s social care sector is that, while there will be people who genuinely feel that they are the opposite gender, there will be many more where it is just mental health and cries for help. And many more regret it than not. Same for people who feel pressure to be gay but are not. And then do things that they are later affected by

There needs to be a way to warn against it without immediately being labelled TERF or whatever other word stupid people say
 
Widow said:
Chatgpu... The world is ending and you're wrong, in law, a reasonable person is quite simple and your AI has over complicated it so what. When I started studying law the first lesson was to never use Google to answer a legal question, I now see why.
Click to expand...

I wasnt using the ChatGPT for a definite answer, I was curious about what answer it might give from the perspective of using it as a bit of humour.
 
Halftrack said:
What censorship? What specifically is now being censored?
Click to expand...

More people.

What was the point in bringing in the law if it doesn't increase the scope of enforcement?

3000 complaints on the first day and you are going to argue nothing has changed?
 
LawCharltonBest said:
My experience working in children’s social care sector is that, while there will be people who genuinely feel that they are the opposite gender, there will be many more where it is just mental health and cries for help. And many more regret it than not. Same for people who feel pressure to be gay but are not. And then do things that they are later affected by

There needs to be a way to warn against it without immediately being labelled TERF or whatever other word stupid people say
Click to expand...

That can’t be an actual thing, surely? The opposite, definitely. But why on earth would someone who is not gay feel pressured to deny their heterosexuality?
 
hobbers said:
The issue comes with including the word insulting. Because an individual or group feeling insulted should be irrelevant as far as the law is concerned. Obviously.

And the police have had no training on what is meant by "insulting" or what constitutes a "reasonable person".
Click to expand...
Widow said:
I hope they've had the training, the term reasonable person has been used In law since the 1900s
Click to expand...
hobbers said:
But has anyone defined reasonable person in the context of demented people who live on twitter.
Click to expand...

It’s not up to the police to define anything. Not now, not previously. That’s for the courts to decide. And the concept of what is and isn’t reasonable as a legal definition has been around for decades and societal norms have changed a lot over that time.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
It’s not up to the police to define anything. Not now, not previously. That’s for the courts to decide. And the concept of what is and isn’t reasonable as a legal definition has been around for decades and societal norms have changed a lot over that time.
Click to expand...

But its up to the police to make the judgement call to arrest someone or not. And even if you are aquitted it doesn't look good for you career if you have been arrested on charge on hate speech because you said something someone from a protected group found insulting or offensive.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
That can’t be an actual thing, surely? The opposite, definitely. But why on earth would someone who is not gay feel pressured to deny their heterosexuality?
Click to expand...
Many reasons.

I myself when I was in college decided against going to a gay club (which becomes a fad amongst straight people, for whatever reason, to seem Worldly I guess) - no hate, just know if I were gay I wouldn’t want gay clubs overrun with straight people. The response to my “nah that’s okay” was being hatefully called a homophobe and all sorts. I was then excluded from things for a while.

Also get many situations amongst younger people where if you aren’t gay or actively banging the drum, you’ll get effectively cancelled.

This is the world out there and one I’ve seen. It’s mental but it happens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.