Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 "a) Chelsea Manning has the right to identify as a woman and to be referred to as such" So this is pish, isn't it? He doesn't actually have any of these so-called "rights", it's just your opinion you're referring to. Since "moral rights" don't actually have any weight in law whatsoever, correct? Is there any particular reason you keep on presenting your opinions as facts without any evidence or factual basis? She. She does have rights to be and to be identified as a woman. Moral rights are things. I didn't suggest they had legal force. I'm talking about principles here. By calling her a man you are being transphobic. It is discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Its a minor point of law. Isn't that the equivalent of activating the bat signal? My antenna are not alerted by a non-specific allegation of vandalism by a non-specific loyalist group on a non-specific date, in respect of which there was no specific details about the stage of the criminal investigation it had reached. The first I knew of the specific dates and context of these acts was when lichtiegilphead identified them in the same post that he accused me of not criticising Frosty. I'm not a time traveller. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 OK I think I will leave this thread for a while. You, Ad lLb and Vikington seem never to want a fair discussion but prefer to use abuse and tropes. I'll go back to The BRALT which is much more reasonable that here. I'm sorry that you found my rebuttal of your post so "unpleasant" that you had to remove yourself, I have no idea what triggered it since "unpleasantness" is clearly relative. If only you had the courage of your convictions and discussed the issue instead of running away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberdeenBud Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Chelsea Manning's gender issues and her legal status have zero relevance to Scottish Independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I didn't know when the events he was referring to happened and in any case only skim-read the post. I don't really read Frosty's posts for the most part. OK, so as a fully paid-up member of the Glasgow Uni Law cabal, can you confirm that it is unlikely that sentences would have been handed down yet regarding any criminal activity by a crazed lone unionist near a grassy knoll in Dunoon in mid-July? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 She. She does have rights to be and to be identified as a woman. Moral rights are things. I didn't suggest they had legal force. I'm talking about principles here. By calling her a man you are being transphobic. It is discrimination. Moral rights are not things, they're concepts. Legal rights are things. Saying that Chelsea Manning has any rights other than those bestowed on any citizen of the United States would be quite wrong. Which is what you were. Of course none of this has anything to do with Scottish Independence, which is nothing new. You would rather argue about anything other than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 OK, so as a fully paid-up member of the Glasgow Uni Law cabal, can you confirm that it is unlikely that sentences would have been handed down yet regarding any criminal activity by a crazed lone unionist near a grassy knoll in Dunoon in mid-July? Very unlikely indeed, yes. My dad's car got nicked at the start of July and they caught one of the perpetrators about a week later. He pled guilty at (I think) his first intermediate diet and that was only a fortnight ago. And it was as open and shut as it gets as he was caught on CCTV at a petrol station stealing petrol. Unless these loyalists were caught in the act or soon after and there was enough evidence to prosecute, there's no chance in hell they'd have been found guilty, far less sentenced by now. I doubt they've even had the opportunity to charge anyone as vandalism is notoriously difficult to connect to an individual let alone to corroborate. This isn't to say that the perpetrators weren't loyalists, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 She. She does have rights to be and to be identified as a woman. Moral rights are things. I didn't suggest they had legal force. I'm talking about principles here. By calling her a man you are being transphobic. It is discrimination. I'm not sure of the fine detail here, but do you know if Mr Chelsea Manning has two x chromosomes, or an x and a y? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 I'm not sure of the fine detail here, but do you know if Mr Chelsea Manning has two x chromosomes, or an x and a y? Chromosomes don't determine gender. They determine sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baxter Parp Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Chromosomes don't determine gender. They determine sex. Gender: depending on the context, the term may refer to biological sex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender Please don't let me stop you, do go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Chromosomes don't determine gender. They determine sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lichtgilphead Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Very unlikely indeed, yes. My dad's car got nicked at the start of July and they caught one of the perpetrators about a week later. He pled guilty at (I think) his first intermediate diet and that was only a fortnight ago. And it was as open and shut as it gets as he was caught on CCTV at a petrol station stealing petrol. Unless these loyalists were caught in the act or soon after and there was enough evidence to prosecute, there's no chance in hell they'd have been found guilty, far less sentenced by now. I doubt they've even had the opportunity to charge anyone as vandalism is notoriously difficult to connect to an individual let alone to corroborate. This isn't to say that the perpetrators weren't loyalists, of course. There we go folks. Proof positive that Ad Lib keeps unionists honest too. Persuading him to point out the obvious stupidity of Frosty's argument took even less time than it takes Frosty's fantasy criminal justice system to put wrongdoers away for life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 Gender: depending on the context, the term may refer to biological sex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender Please don't let me stop you, do go on. When we refer to individuals in a social context, we are not identifying them by their anatomy. We are identifying them by their social identity. The sex/gender distinction concerns itself with precisely this. It takes a particularly craven construction of human interaction that says we should determine social interactions on genitalia rather than how people have consciously chosen to self identify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 I'm sorry that you found my rebuttal of your post so "unpleasant" that you had to remove yourself, I have no idea what triggered it since "unpleasantness" is clearly relative. If only you had the courage of your convictions and discussed the issue instead of running away. Don't try to either flatter yourself or patronise me. It is pretty simple: On The BRALT folk will agree they made a wrong point maybe half the time. Here? Never. You all try and outdo each other with your cant and smart-arsed smugness. It's a rum day when your thread is regarded as less reasonable than The BRALT!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 The current GUSNA President is a Glasgow law student. The other two aren't. All three are fundamentally "sound" even though they have very different political views from my own. Chelsea Manning is a woman. Her gender is not pre-determined by her biological anatomy. He/she is entitled to callehim/herself whatever he/she wants but to say that your gender is not pre-determined by biology is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If I call myself a horse, does that make me a horse? Is my species pre-determined by my biologincal anatomy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Kincardine Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 He/she is entitled to callehim/herself whatever he/she wants but to say that your gender is not pre-determined by biology is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If I call myself a horse, does that make me a horse? Is my species pre-determined by my biologincal anatomy? Whit? Just whit? Maybe this sounded OK in your head. You are taking Descarte's, "Cogito ergo sum" too far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 He/she is entitled to callehim/herself whatever he/she wants but to say that your gender is not pre-determined by biology is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If I call myself a horse, does that make me a horse? Is my species pre-determined by my biologincal anatomy? Gender and sex are different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Gender and sex are different things. clearly you never studied biology Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davi3j Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 When we refer to individuals in a social context, we are not identifying them by their anatomy. We are identifying them by their social identity. The sex/gender distinction concerns itself with precisely this. It takes a particularly craven construction of human interaction that says we should determine social interactions on genitalia rather than how people have consciously chosen to self identify. you can call yourself whatever you want...you'll still be a guy though eta....if an apple called itself an orange, what would you be eating, an apple or an orange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todders Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 When we refer to individuals in a social context, we are not identifying them by their anatomy. Who is this "we"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.