Oct 10, 2022·edited Oct 10, 2022Liked by Dennis Noel Kavanagh
I have no personal connection at all with anything LGB or TQ. And although a woman, so far I've not been personally affected, other than losing a few so-called friends and incurring the usual slurs for speaking about these issues. I just see very clearly that gender identity ideology is a manifestation of ignorance and evil; that it's regressive; and is increasingly doing harm to women and girls; gay and lesbian people; children; free speech; basic moral decency and the value of truth itself. So I'm very appreciative of the massive level of skill, eloquence and courage that both Dennis and Andrew bring to fighting this scourge.
As always in this "heated debate" I check facts no matter which side they come from and I couldn't believe some of the things you were saying so I looked at the CPS consultation and, as always so far, you were right. In fact I had great difficulty understanding what the CPS were trying to say right from the beginning so for people on here I've copied the first point and put the translation underneath which now makes perfect sense. Keep up the good work.
1: Has there been active or deliberate deception?
If a suspect genuinely perceives their gender identity to be different to their birth assigned sex or if their gender identity is in a state of flux and/or emerging, this may be evidence there was not a deliberate deception.
1: Has there been active or deliberate deception?
If a suspect genuinely perceives their sex to be different to their sex or if their sex is in a state of flux and/or emerging, this may be evidence there was not a deliberate deception.
It's quite extraordinary isn't it - the suspects perception is a counterweight to the deception in this framework - it's a complete non-sequitur in my view
Oh my god, it gets worse. It's like saying to a woman that she knew exactly what her abusive husband was like but went back to him so her abuse is her fault. Am I reading this right?
"Has the complainant closed their eyes to the obvious or wilfully ignored aspects of the suspect’s gender? For instance, did the complainant have an opportunity to discover or confirm the gender of the suspect but chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity?"
Imagine having an otherwise viable prosecution dropped on that basis. As I commented, we really are back at "was she wearing a short skirt" - and note - it's now the second reason in the guidance (after question 1's consideration of "gender identity) NOT to prosecute
Wait until you realize how correct we critics have been about, well, almost everything. Wait until you discover that all the things that might have struck you as "histrionic" or "exaggerated" that we gender-criticals have been saying---they're all true.
I hope you'll be able to get to a place where "deliberate deception" doesn't shock you, but that you understand it's been going on all along while you've charitably assumed it couldn't possibly.
Yes, he's great. He unearths all the bad stuff and interprets it so skillfully and articulately. He's a joy to listen to and he makes me laugh, that's not an easy thing to do when you're trying to wade through all the gender shite.
I wish an employer would sack someone because of their gender identity ideology beliefs. We would then find out at the tribunal if this belief system was "worthy of respect in a democratic society". Imagine all the "evidence" to support the belief. I'd get the beers in to sit back and watch that.
More reading to do. I obviously didn't follow the case close enough. I didn't realise that Forstater said that Biology Denial was protected. You learn something new every day. Thanks for putting me straight Dennis.
I have no personal connection at all with anything LGB or TQ. And although a woman, so far I've not been personally affected, other than losing a few so-called friends and incurring the usual slurs for speaking about these issues. I just see very clearly that gender identity ideology is a manifestation of ignorance and evil; that it's regressive; and is increasingly doing harm to women and girls; gay and lesbian people; children; free speech; basic moral decency and the value of truth itself. So I'm very appreciative of the massive level of skill, eloquence and courage that both Dennis and Andrew bring to fighting this scourge.
Well said!
Dennis
As always in this "heated debate" I check facts no matter which side they come from and I couldn't believe some of the things you were saying so I looked at the CPS consultation and, as always so far, you were right. In fact I had great difficulty understanding what the CPS were trying to say right from the beginning so for people on here I've copied the first point and put the translation underneath which now makes perfect sense. Keep up the good work.
1: Has there been active or deliberate deception?
If a suspect genuinely perceives their gender identity to be different to their birth assigned sex or if their gender identity is in a state of flux and/or emerging, this may be evidence there was not a deliberate deception.
1: Has there been active or deliberate deception?
If a suspect genuinely perceives their sex to be different to their sex or if their sex is in a state of flux and/or emerging, this may be evidence there was not a deliberate deception.
It's quite extraordinary isn't it - the suspects perception is a counterweight to the deception in this framework - it's a complete non-sequitur in my view
Oh my god, it gets worse. It's like saying to a woman that she knew exactly what her abusive husband was like but went back to him so her abuse is her fault. Am I reading this right?
"Has the complainant closed their eyes to the obvious or wilfully ignored aspects of the suspect’s gender? For instance, did the complainant have an opportunity to discover or confirm the gender of the suspect but chose not to avail themselves of the opportunity?"
Imagine having an otherwise viable prosecution dropped on that basis. As I commented, we really are back at "was she wearing a short skirt" - and note - it's now the second reason in the guidance (after question 1's consideration of "gender identity) NOT to prosecute
Wait until you realize how correct we critics have been about, well, almost everything. Wait until you discover that all the things that might have struck you as "histrionic" or "exaggerated" that we gender-criticals have been saying---they're all true.
I hope you'll be able to get to a place where "deliberate deception" doesn't shock you, but that you understand it's been going on all along while you've charitably assumed it couldn't possibly.
great job. thanks
Two powerful, erudite voices on the same stage. How can we lose with greta people like this in our ranks?
Thanks to both. for your courage and forthright honestly and accuracy.
Thanks, Dennis, for speaking out!
You're a Fred Sargeant of my generation Dennis.
Yes, he's great. He unearths all the bad stuff and interprets it so skillfully and articulately. He's a joy to listen to and he makes me laugh, that's not an easy thing to do when you're trying to wade through all the gender shite.
Guys you are both very kind, thank you very much :)
I wish an employer would sack someone because of their gender identity ideology beliefs. We would then find out at the tribunal if this belief system was "worthy of respect in a democratic society". Imagine all the "evidence" to support the belief. I'd get the beers in to sit back and watch that.
I'm afraid Forstater provides a complete answer to this and says BOTH GC and Biology Denial are equally protected
More reading to do. I obviously didn't follow the case close enough. I didn't realise that Forstater said that Biology Denial was protected. You learn something new every day. Thanks for putting me straight Dennis.