UK to heavily restrict access to puberty-blocker medication for trans youth

[Bedlam]

Of course someone you consider a bigot may consider you biggoted as well. Who gets to choose who defines biggotry?

[Ralin]

Of course someone you consider a bigot may consider you biggoted as well. Who gets to choose who defines biggotry?

Me

[Zaune]

Maybe - but don't bigots have to eat, too? Depriving someone of the means to live is pretty cruel, even if they are an evil jackass. What are you going to do with all the unemployed bigots?

Point of order: Nobody has ever been sacked for merely holding racist, transphobic or otherwise bigoted views. They've been sacked for failing to keep said views to themselves, either directly at work or in a venue so thoroughly public that they end up bringing their employers into disrepute by association.

[Solauren]

And the evidence for this mass malpractice you allege is...?

I never said malpractice. I said someone is not doing their job. That is a general statement that can be applied to anyone, while malpractice is specifically aimed at medical practitioners. So please, don't ask me to produce evidence on something I never specifically said.

Now, on that note - If Doctors were following the existing guidelines and requirements, and that was as simple as 'hand them a pamplet, tell them to read it, and then ask if they did and have any questions, then answer them', and they did, then the doctors did not commit malpractice in a legal sense. They did what they were supposed to, as decided by the National Healthcare Service.

In such a case, the fault would lay with whomever said the process can be started with 'just give them a pamplet and then answer questions'. If the ruling was anything to go by, that individual/group of individuals were not doing their job when they designed the requirements. (They either didn't care, didn't understand, or half-assed it). As this would be middle to high level management that was making that decision, they may not a medical degree/license, or even medical training. (Same situation IT people run into; high level people that don't know a thing about technology making decisions such as training requirements.)

Since the article didn't mention any doctors specifically being brough to task, and the ruling was aimed at an organization, until otherwise demonstrated, I'm going to continue under the belief that this situation is the fault of someone at the organization level, and not individual doctors.

Now, you could make the argument that the doctors had a moral responsibility to go above the guidelines if they felt they were not sufficient. (And that is an arguement I would agree with.) However, that in itself is not malpractice.

[Broomstick]

Maybe - but don't bigots have to eat, too? Depriving someone of the means to live is pretty cruel, even if they are an evil jackass. What are you going to do with all the unemployed bigots?

Point of order: Nobody has ever been sacked for merely holding racist, transphobic or otherwise bigoted views. They've been sacked for failing to keep said views to themselves, either directly at work or in a venue so thoroughly public that they end up bringing their employers into disrepute by association.

That's not what Darth Yan said:

....frankly TERFS DESERVE to be fired. If you're a bigot you should loose your job.)

No qualification of "you deserve to be fired if you start acting out", just fire 'em all. And yeah, these distinctions count. One is holding people responsible for their actions, the other is punishing them for a belief whether they act on them or not.

[Gandalf]

Why did you cut out the first half of Yan's sentence, which contextualises the second half a bit?

[Broomstick]

To reduce the size of the quote and to point out the offensive part. But since you ask:

At some point you loose sympathy when you start oppressing others (and frankly TERFS DESERVE to be fired. If you're a bigot you should loose your job.)

That still leaves the problem of how the bigots are supposed to eat and put a roof over their head. Sure, if a TERF commits assault or makes threats they should lose their job, but those are all criminals acts regardless of where the impulse comes from. Depriving people of their livelihood solely for having wrong-headed ideas and opinions means a lot of people homeless and starving. Judging by the last election results in this country about 80 million just to start over here.

Yeah, I get the anger. But I question if that's the right way to go about changing things.

[madd0ct0r]

To reduce the size of the quote and to point out the offensive part. But since you ask:

At some point you loose sympathy when you start oppressing others (and frankly TERFS DESERVE to be fired. If you're a bigot you should loose your job.)

That still leaves the problem of how the bigots are supposed to eat and put a roof over their head. Sure, if a TERF commits assault or makes threats they should lose their job, but those are all criminals acts regardless of where the impulse comes from. Depriving people of their livelihood solely for having wrong-headed ideas and opinions means a lot of people homeless and starving. Judging by the last election results in this country about 80 million just to start over here.

Yeah, I get the anger. But I question if that's the right way to go about changing things.

Is there not a difference between soneone having wrongheaded ideas and that same person being placed in authority over you?

[Broomstick]

I've had a LOT of bosses with wrong-headed ideas I've had to deal with in my life. Hell, Trump's been in authority over the whole damn country I live in four fucking years, it's not like it's an inconceivable situation.

I am really uncomfortable with the notion that because you don't agree with a person that's sufficient reason to deprive them of their livelihood. I think TERF's are wrong, but I don't agree they should have their means of making a living taken away solely for their beliefs. If their actions are wrong - threats, harassment, etc. - that's grounds for punishment. Their beliefs? Do you believe people have freedom of thought and belief or not? And if not, how do you intend to change the beliefs you believe are wrong into those you believe are correct? How effective do you think coercion would be? How effective do you think rendering someone destitute would be?

Yes, having someone biased against you in authority over you is a serious, serious problem. Having someone else lose their income, home, and all means of support because someone is biased against them is also wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right.

I'd like to think there's a better way to deal with all this, but I'm tired right now and can't think of anything.

[Batman]

I suspect you already did and are just too tired to remember. Yes, sacking people purely for their beliefs is wrong (though I'd make exceptions for when those beliefs include things like other people needing to die because they're unnatural or subhuman or unclean or any other such garbage) but people like that, especially when in positions of power, will inevitably act on it to force their worldview on others and this is when their ass is grass.

[Ralin]

Obvious answer is that there should also be comprehensive welfare programs guaranteeing everyone a basic livelihood where they will have housing, food and medical care regardless of their employment status

[Broomstick]

So how do you remove bigots from positions where they can do harm while causing minimal harm to those same human beings that are bigots and the family members that may depend on them (who may or may not be bigoted themselves).

[Solauren]

So how do you remove bigots from positions where they can do harm while causing minimal harm to those same human beings that are bigots and the family members that may depend on them (who may or may not be bigoted themselves).

Find them a position they are qualified for, but can't do any serious harm in.

Or just go 'People lose jobs all the time, and it impacts their families. Why should this be any different?'

[Jub]

So how do you remove bigots from positions where they can do harm while causing minimal harm to those same human beings that are bigots and the family members that may depend on them (who may or may not be bigoted themselves).

Why are we treating this as a larger concern than the systemic imbalance of power, wealth, social status caused by allowing bigots to continue holding anything other than menial and unimportant positions? Why is the racist manager any more important than the trans woman he refused to hire?

[Broomstick]

Why are we treating this as a larger concern than the systemic imbalance of power, wealth, social status caused by allowing bigots to continue holding anything other than menial and unimportant positions? Why is the racist manager any more important than the trans woman he refused to hire?

The racist/bigot is NOT more important, but last I heard being a racist didn't merit being homeless, starving, or dead - which, in the US, is where you wind up if you're able-bodied but no one wants to hire you. That is EXACTLY the harm we are trying to remedy in the case of the oppressed, but turning around and inflicting on someone else just creates another oppressed class we'll have to deal with down the line.

So how do you remove bigots from positions where they can do harm while causing minimal harm to those same human beings that are bigots and the family members that may depend on them (who may or may not be bigoted themselves).

Find them a position they are qualified for, but can't do any serious harm in.

Or just go 'People lose jobs all the time, and it impacts their families. Why should this be any different?'

Not sure where you're located, but where I am those who are "fired for cause" have a very difficult time getting another job. At all. Especially since 2007 when even though who lose their jobs through no fault of their own have difficulty finding work.

It's akin to the problem of demanding that people released from jail find work or be re-jailed when having any record of time in jail means almost no one will hire you. It's a Catch-22. Yes, both former felons and racists/bigots are guilty of causing harm, but making it nearly impossible for them to support themselves/their families is replacing one problem (problems with discrimination of a minority, often leaving them homeless and with no way to make a living other than the sex trade) with another (a different group of homeless and starving people).

Of course, in societies where there is an actual functional safety net such people could be left permanently unemployed but still have access to the necessities of life. Which arrangement I could live with.

In actual decent societies the problem shouldn't come up very often, but unfortunately US society at the moment is neither decent nor equipped with a safety net.

[Ralin]

Of course, in societies where there is an actual functional safety net such people could be left permanently unemployed but still have access to the necessities of life. Which arrangement I could live with.

In actual decent societies the problem shouldn't come up very often, but unfortunately US society at the moment is neither decent nor equipped with a safety net.

If we're going to speculate about a future America where transphobes in positions of power are consistently fired when they open their mouths we might as well also imagine it's an America where a functional welfare system exists to provide that safety net.

[Jub]

The racist/bigot is NOT more important, but last I heard being a racist didn't merit being homeless, starving, or dead - which, in the US, is where you wind up if you're able-bodied but no one wants to hire you. That is EXACTLY the harm we are trying to remedy in the case of the oppressed, but turning around and inflicting on someone else just creates another oppressed class we'll have to deal with down the line.

Let me try again. You do realize that these bigots are causing these exact same evils (homelessness, starvation, and death) by refusing to hire people that they are bigoted against? In addition, bigots often hold more power than the oppressed classes they oppose and thus can put more of a thumb onto the scales than the oppressed can which causes even worse outcomes for the classes/people they hate. So you gain a net increase in equality by removing bigots from power even if the lives of those bigots are destroyed in the process.

[Beowulf]

Of course, in societies where there is an actual functional safety net such people could be left permanently unemployed but still have access to the necessities of life. Which arrangement I could live with.

In actual decent societies the problem shouldn't come up very often, but unfortunately US society at the moment is neither decent nor equipped with a safety net.

If we're going to speculate about a future America where transphobes in positions of power are consistently fired when they open their mouths we might as well also imagine it's an America where a functional welfare system exists to provide that safety net.

It doesn't have to be consistent. It just has not be rare. People with nothing to lose and a grudge? Probably not a good thing to deliberately create.

[Broomstick]

The racist/bigot is NOT more important, but last I heard being a racist didn't merit being homeless, starving, or dead - which, in the US, is where you wind up if you're able-bodied but no one wants to hire you. That is EXACTLY the harm we are trying to remedy in the case of the oppressed, but turning around and inflicting on someone else just creates another oppressed class we'll have to deal with down the line.

Let me try again. You do realize that these bigots are causing these exact same evils (homelessness, starvation, and death) by refusing to hire people that they are bigoted against? In addition, bigots often hold more power than the oppressed classes they oppose and thus can put more of a thumb onto the scales than the oppressed can which causes even worse outcomes for the classes/people they hate. So you gain a net increase in equality by removing bigots from power even if the lives of those bigots are destroyed in the process.

I've been pretty consistent over the years about being anti-death penalty. Even if someone takes another life (or several) I don't feel justified taking their life in return. I've always advocated for putting the offender where they can do no more harm.

So why would I not apply this same standard to bigots and racists? Destroying their lives does not give anything back to their victims. I call for putting them somewhere where they can do no further harm.

I'm not interested in vengeance, I'm interested in actually solving problems long term.

Meanwhile - for those in proper, actual treatment I call for access to any and all medications that would assist them in achieving a healthier and happier life. I want legislation protecting the right of trans people to access housing, jobs, and all the other resources the rest of us take for granted.

[Jub]

I've been pretty consistent over the years about being anti-death penalty. Even if someone takes another life (or several) I don't feel justified taking their life in return. I've always advocated for putting the offender where they can do no more harm.

So why would I not apply this same standard to bigots and racists? Destroying their lives does not give anything back to their victims. I call for putting them somewhere where they can do no further harm.

Removing bigots from positions of power DOES give something back to their victims. It gives a chance that the replacement will actually hire people of color, trans-people, immigrants, or whatever class of people the old boss was against. It also sends a message to companies that bigots aren't a healthy class of people to invest resources in which in turn helps the oppressed.

Your solution of doing nothing because somebody's life may be harmed if they get fired from a job is only going to lead to more of the same and a world America just keeps getting shittier while the rest of the world moves on. Do you want to live in a 3rd world country with nukes because that's what you get when no social change is ever allowed to go more than surface deep?

Meanwhile - for those in proper, actual treatment I call for access to any and all medications that would assist them in achieving a healthier and happier life. I want legislation protecting the right of trans people to access housing, jobs, and all the other resources the rest of us take for granted.

As for this, do you know how long it can take for a trans-person to jump through all the medical and legal hoops required to actually get treatment? It can take years and a requirement that they live as their assigned gender just to get hormones, let alone voice therapy, facial feminization surgery, top surgery (mastectomies or implants), and bottom surgery. We put massive burdens on people who are already marginalized and wonder why so many of them end up dead either at the hands of bigots because they didn't pass well enough or by suicide because they simply can't bear living in a body that doesn't fit any longer.

Asking for more read tape to fix the issue of hiring malpractice (a charge that can be difficult to make stick) isn't going to fix a damned thing any more than these equality acts have fixed issues women face in employment with regards to wage, industry biases, and even medical issues such as maternity leave.

[Broomstick]

I've been pretty consistent over the years about being anti-death penalty. Even if someone takes another life (or several) I don't feel justified taking their life in return. I've always advocated for putting the offender where they can do no more harm.

So why would I not apply this same standard to bigots and racists? Destroying their lives does not give anything back to their victims. I call for putting them somewhere where they can do no further harm.

Removing bigots from positions of power DOES give something back to their victims.

And I have supported that stance - removing them from positions of power - through out this entire thread. Please do not try to strawman my posts.

Your solution of doing nothing because somebody's life may be harmed if they get fired from a job is only going to lead to more of the same and a world America just keeps getting shittier while the rest of the world moves on. Do you want to live in a 3rd world country with nukes because that's what you get when no social change is ever allowed to go more than surface deep?

First, I do NOT advocate "doing nothing". Again, you are strawmanning my position. What I am arguing against is making them unemployable at all, which is a different thing that "remove them from positions where they can cause harm".

Meanwhile - for those in proper, actual treatment I call for access to any and all medications that would assist them in achieving a healthier and happier life. I want legislation protecting the right of trans people to access housing, jobs, and all the other resources the rest of us take for granted.

As for this, do you know how long it can take for a trans-person to jump through all the medical and legal hoops required to actually get treatment?

Yes, yes I do. I do not, in fact, consider the road with all those obstacles to be "access". Medical care might as well not exist if you can't get to it. Let me clarify that "access" means in a timely manner and also at a price the average person can afford without being impoverished.

[Jub]

And I have supported that stance - removing them from positions of power - through out this entire thread. Please do not try to strawman my posts.

First, I do NOT advocate "doing nothing". Again, you are strawmanning my position. What I am arguing against is making them unemployable at all, which is a different thing that "remove them from positions where they can cause harm".

I think we ended up talking past one another. I'm not advocating that bigots be branded for life with a big do not hire tag like a felon or sex offender. What I am advocating is for any bigot that speaks up or is caught discriminating against anybody, protected group or not, be fired with prejudice, and have any positive references given out by the company that fired them. If this screws them well, worse things happen to better people.

Yes, yes I do. I do not, in fact, consider the road with all those obstacles to be "access". Medical care might as well not exist if you can't get to it. Let me clarify that "access" means in a timely manner and also at a price the average person can afford without being impoverished.

Excellent, again we were just talking past one another and agree on this!

[Broomstick]

I think we ended up talking past one another. I'm not advocating that bigots be branded for life with a big do not hire tag like a felon or sex offender.

I do think that ex-felons and sex offenders should be able to earn a living, too. In a manner that does not endanger others.

I've known several ex-felons who did straighten up and become solid, law-abiding citizens - punishing someone like that for life makes no sense. Likewise, there are reformed racists out there.

On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much hope for sex offenders... but they should still have a means to make a living rather than forming homeless colonies out on the edge of town like happens too often these days. That's no solution, either.

[Solauren]

It depends on the sex offender, the offense, and where the offense was committed.

Remember, there are placed in the world where minors doing something stupid will get them marked as sex offenders.

I really doubt a 13 year old boy who took a picture of his nether regions and emailed it to a friend as a joke is life-time risk to the general public.

[Broomstick]

And that's ANOTHER topic worthy of a thread, but I'm trying to avoid derailing this one.