July 2016. Norway introduces a new law which means anyone can change their "legal sex" on paper, simply by filling in a form. (1)
-
-
But expressing her belief that the man is a man is part of the accusations of harassment! Did any of you actually read it?
-
One can very well be required to *not* express a belief in certain situations, especially at work. And sometimes one *can* be required at work to state legal reality as opposed to their own view, though, yes, this has severe limits (unless one is a judge, then this IS work).
-
Indeed, not talking about one's religious faith at work is reasonable for example. But to demand that someone refers to a man as a woman or vice versa is compelled speech & gaslighting and I can't see how it can be defended.
-
Exactly in the same way as referring to same sex people as parents. In public employment this is a person representing the state and not themselves. Other employment, a part of enforced politeness.
-
Lol. It is nothing like referring to same-sex people as parents. If they are parents then that is a true fact. Forcing a woman to refer to a man as a woman is coercive control.
-
There are many people who sincerely believe that every child deserves a mother and a father and that two people of the same sex can not really be parents, as that is biologically impossible. Why is forcing such people - some are women - to refer to two men as parents different?
-
It's different in many ways. 1) Parent has long been used to describe non-biological parents, e.g. adoptive, foster, other family. 2) Their status as parent doesn't require anyone else to be defined out of existence, the way "transwoman" requires "woman" to be redefined.
-
(2) is outright false, as expanding the meaning of "woman" does not define anyone out of existence (like, say, defining "Irish" to include me, or to include a black person, does not define any true-blooded Gael out of existence). But again this is neither here nor there.
- 12 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
It was harassment on the part of the penis owning person towards the woman.
-
it was not the woman who brought the case and it was not the conclusion of the tribunal but if that is your opinion, I understand and respect your right to express it.
-
Thank you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If the state can require you to refer to a man as a woman, it can require you to say anything. You should be very suspicious of any rule that requires people to ignore reality. How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.