is it going to far ? compensation culture

Narj said:
People are definitely going to be more sensitive about gender identity than being bald. I can imagine it's probably distressing and she's just trying to raise awareness in all honesty. Going up to a TG telling them they look like a man in women's clothes isn't a hate crime, although it's extremely insensitive IMO.

I'm not sure what the control room were supposed to do, although they could have been given a heads up in the first place that the officer was TG.
Click to expand...

Considering singling people out for being goth/emo/whatever can now be classed as a hate crime I'd imagine it is.
 
I don't see the issue really if the operators are in doubt it's their job to question the officer as for the TG she/he needs to man up and not get all up in arms over such things at the end of the day what if this was a crime victim questioning her/him out of curiosity would she/he then try to sue the victim?
 
233 said:
Really don't understand how it can be offensive to call a TG a bloke

Similar situation if I move to England wave a st George's cross and talk with a southern accent I can't get upset if someone calls me scottish

I was born scottish and always will be scottish no amount of changing my appearnance of behaviour will ever change that

Same if you were born a bloke no amounts of woman's clothes hormones or lopping bits off will change that your still a bloke albeit one without a penis
Click to expand...

Have to agree, if you are a born a bloke then that is your lot I'm afraid and no amount of cutting and slicing is going to change that.

I had a transsexual shout at me at work the other day because he thought something or other was too expensive. Usually I would address a customer as sir or madam but with him I had no idea what to say.
I thought if I called him Sir he would have got upset but then possibly the same for calling him madam, in the end I just didn't say anything regarding gender and probably came across as rude (then again he didn't deserve to be treated politely with his aggressive shouting in store so meh).

Its just so damned confusing!
 
TheVoice said:
No she didn't; WPC isn't a term that's used and hasn't been for many years.
Click to expand...

I read through the story twice to see if there was any mention of her referring to herself as a WPC. Shame that there wasn't any mention as it would be rather ironic way for her to assert her right to equality.
 
I wonder what would happen for a full female body search, would this officer be offended if an actual woman objected to being body searched by a man in a dress?
 
While there are no doubt some genuine issues regarding how transexual people are sometimes treated (as some of the posts in this thread show), this isn't one of them.

Police radios will work for anyone, not just the person who's supposed to be using it. The person in the control room should challenge someone using it if they have a reason to suspect their identity. It's not about sex - it would be equally relevant if, for example, a person speaking with a Cornish accent identified themself as a police officer who was from Yorkshire.

What if someone had attacked a police officer and stolen their radio to try to call other police officers into a trap? It's a possible scenario.

I'm a man. People who hear just my voice quite often mistake me for a woman. When I was younger, I was quite often mistaken for a woman in real life. So what? Oh noes, where's my compo?
 
233 said:
Really don't understand how it can be offensive to call a TG a bloke

[..]

Same if you were born a bloke no amounts of woman's clothes hormones or lopping bits off will change that your still a bloke albeit one without a penis
Click to expand...

I'm using your post for illustration - this question applies to many people:

How do you define a person's sex and why do you use that definition?


It might seem a silly question, but please think about your answer because it's a lot less clear than it might seem.

Here's a quick overview of the problems with various answers:

1) Birth. This appears to be the answer you're using. It's obviously a silly answer if you give it a little thought and it contradicts reality in a spectacularly obvious way. Nobody is "born a bloke". Everybody is born as a baby. If you want to remain consistent with your obviously wrong argument that everyone is always the same as they were when they were born, you must argue that everyone is always a newborn baby for all of their life. It's a spectacularly ridiculous line of argument to be making.

2) Genes. Simple problem with that definition - genes are just data. They are not a person. Genotype is not phenotype. It's very obviously possible to change some aspect of your body without changing your genes. For example, my genes don't give me a hole in my earlobe but there is a hole in my earlobe. That hole is really there - I have an earring to prove it. Also, more directly relevant to this subject, it's possible for someone to be born with XX and be born male or to be born with XY and be born female - genes are at most plans and things don't always go according to plan.

3) Primary sexual organs. OK, at least this one is based on actual biology at the relevant time. Seems like a better bet...but this definition would make anyone who has them removed sexless. Some people have their testicles or ovaries removed for medical reasons, usually cancer. Are those people really sexless? Also, this definition would require you to view all post-op transexuals as neuter, not as their previous sex.

4) Secondary sexual organs or other characteristics. A definition that can get rather undefined (what is a secondary sexual characteristic, exactly?) and which in any case requires you to view transexuals as being transexuals, i.e. as changing or having changed their sex.


I don't think any definition is accurate enough but I'll pencil in (4) as an acceptable definition for daily use.
 
Angilion said:
I'm using your post for illustration - this question applies to many people:

How do you define a person's sex and why do you use that definition?


It might seem a silly question, but please think about your answer because it's a lot less clear than it might seem.

Here's a quick overview of the problems with various answers:

1) Birth. This appears to be the answer you're using. It's obviously a silly answer if you give it a little thought and it contradicts reality in a spectacularly obvious way. Nobody is "born a bloke". Everybody is born as a baby. If you want to remain consistent with your obviously wrong argument that everyone is always the same as they were when they were born, you must argue that everyone is always a newborn baby for all of their life. It's a spectacularly ridiculous line of argument to be making.

2) Genes. Simple problem with that definition - genes are just data. They are not a person. Genotype is not phenotype. It's very obviously possible to change some aspect of your body without changing your genes. For example, my genes don't give me a hole in my earlobe but there is a hole in my earlobe. That hole is really there - I have an earring to prove it. Also, more directly relevant to this subject, it's possible for someone to be born with XX and be born male or to be born with XY and be born female - genes are at most plans and things don't always go according to plan.

3) Primary sexual organs. OK, at least this one is based on actual biology at the relevant time. Seems like a better bet...but this definition would make anyone who has them removed sexless. Some people have their testicles or ovaries removed for medical reasons, usually cancer. Are those people really sexless? Also, this definition would require you to view all post-op transexuals as neuter, not as their previous sex.

4) Secondary sexual organs or other characteristics. A definition that can get rather undefined (what is a secondary sexual characteristic, exactly?) and which in any case requires you to view transexuals as being transexuals, i.e. as changing or having changed their sex.


I don't think any definition is accurate enough but I'll pencil in (4) as an acceptable definition for daily use.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a female footballer try to argue she should be in the Arsenal men's team by your fuzzy logic. You are trying to make gender sound a lot more complicated than it actually is. There are a million one things in society we divide into the two sexes which wouldn't have happened if the line was as blurred as you suggest.
 
Last edited:
estebanrey said:
I'd like to see a female footballer try to argue she should be in the Arsenal men's team by your fuzzy logic. You are trying to make gender sound a lot more complicated than it actually is. There are a million one things in society we divide into the two sexes which wouldn't have happened if the line was as blurred as you suggest.
Click to expand...

I have accused him of similar before, over complicating and poorly attempting to blur the lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom