RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be

RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 11:52:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Isn't it illegal to "misgender" someone in the UK? I thought that's where you claim to be from, ronnie? Wait 'til the queen finds out how norty ronnie's been. You are a pitiful little man. quote: ORIGINAL: MasterDrakk Bullshit. You are a poor little mikey welfare queen. And the quote is cute and he will vote as the lobbyists tell him to vote on their laws, just like all the 'libertarians' do. you shouldnt believe everything you think. no it is NOT illegal to misgender someone in the UK The devil is in the details...Ive underlined the pertinent part Recording names and gender identities 276.Trans people in the UK are, like anyone else, entitled under common law to be known by any name they choose (from the age of 16), provided that there is no fraudulent intent. This includes the right to use more than one name (as many people do for professional purposes, such as acting under a “stage name”, or for various personal reasons)278 There is no such thing in UK law as a “legal name” to which one is required to prove one’s entitlement.279 277.As we have noted (see Chapter Three), there does exist in UK law the concept of “legal gender”. However, the circumstances in which it is relevant are limited. These include situations where: an application is being made for a job which is restricted to a single sex as an occupational requirement under the Equality Act 2010 (see Chapter Four); calculations in regard to pensions or benefits (or the age at which they can be drawn) would differ depending on the legal gender of the person concerned; someone has been imprisoned and there is dispute as to which part of the prison estate (male or female) they should be placed in (see below); or a marriage or civil partnership is being entered into. 278.There is thus no legal requirement to produce a GRC (or a new birth certificate issued after the granting of a GRC) in order to have a change of name and gender recorded in an organisation’s records.280 Nor is there any requirement to have undergone any form of gender-reassignment / confirmation treatment for this purpose. 279.Further, under the Equality Act 2010, all organisations (including employers and public bodies, such as the NHS) must respect a trans person’s acquired / affirmed gender and any associated change of name. Failure to change pronouns, names and gender markers (including honorifics and pronouns) on records in respect of a trans person would (with a few exceptions)281 constitute unlawful direct discrimination under the Act. 280.Despite these clear legal principles governing records in respect of trans people, we heard significant evidence that trans people encounter problems with “misgendering” (failure to acknowledge a person’s acquired / affirmed gender) and “deadnaming” (failure to acknowledge a person’s change of name) in many situations. It appears to be commonly assumed that there is such a thing in UK law as a “legal name”, when there clearly is not. It also appears to be assumed that legal gender must be proved in many situations when this is in fact neither required nor appropriate.282 281.Jane Fae pointed out to us that many common practices regarding the recording of changes in name and gender: constitute indirect discrimination: the putting in place of rules or arrangements that apply to everyone, but that result in particular disadvantage to trans persons. For such policies to be lawful, they must be a reasonable means of achieving a necessary end. Security alone cannot excuse discrimination: it must be proven that the policy adopted was the best / only policy available to ensure a particular security outcome, and no reasonable alternatives existed.283 282.We were told that the GEO had worked with the trans community on guidelines for employers regarding the recording of data relating to trans employees and customers, but this had still yet to be published.284 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/39009.htm

JVoV -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 11:54:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I wanted to address one, in a slightly different way, also and I forgot to: quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV You do realize that anyone that wished to read your blog could just do so there, right? You do realize that ANYTHING I post on this website is my own thoughts and whether I was writing outside or not, I would have addressed this issue here, in some way, right? And it's a complete waste of time for anyone to try to have a rational discussion with you. So stick with your blog.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 11:56:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you shouldnt believe everything you think. no it is NOT illegal to misgender someone in the UK ... Well, you got me there. I stand in awe of your google skills. You're the tops! You're the moaner, lisa! (Before I catch any shit: those weren't typos or non-intentional misspellings) You bested me, luny. You win a stick of chewing gum from your pal, ronnie.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:00:04 PM)
Excuse you? Are you telling me my thoughts and opinions aren't welcome here? Did you buy the site or are you just pissing in what you think is *your* sandbox? quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV And it's a complete waste of time for anyone to try to have a rational discussion with you. So stick with your blog.

WhoreMods -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:22:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Excuse you? Are you telling me my thoughts and opinions aren't welcome here? Did you buy the site or are you just pissing in what you think is *your* sandbox? More the opposite, I'd have thought: weren't you saying a page back that you don't want the miscreants, shit stirrers and whoever else posts on here stinking up your blog?

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:25:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods More the opposite, I'd have thought: weren't you saying a page back that you don't want the miscreants, shit stirrers and whoever else posts on here stinking up your blog? I don't remember the words "stinking up" (actually, I said I didn't want to "allow access" to the aforementioned ne'er-do-wells), but I could be mistaken. That to the side, who is anyone to tell me not to post here? I could be wrong, it's been a long time since I read the complete T.O.S., but I'm almost positive such a "statement" is in violation thereof (I know such statements USED TO be). Thanks for checkin' in, though.

Lucylastic -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:28:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic you shouldnt believe everything you think. no it is NOT illegal to misgender someone in the UK ... Well, you got me there. I stand in awe of your google skills. You're the tops! You're the moaner, lisa! (Before I catch any shit: those weren't typos or non-intentional misspellings) You bested me, luny. You win a stick of chewing gum from your pal, ronnie. google wasnt touched... I had the link already for some other jerk who thought he knew what he was talking about, as far as "misgendering" trans people in canada, where it is pretty much the same. Anti discrimination, in organisations and institutions, housing and legal matters. LOL but your assumptions seem to be wrong a lot an awful lot.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:32:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic LOL but your assumptions seem to be wrong a lot an awful lot. Well, but ... no more than yours, right? I mean, you're still the "gold standard" of bad mind reading and "flat-out lies about people you're hoping no one will catch you at", right?

Lucylastic -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:33:28 PM)
I am? according to you? or are you mindreading me? LMAO assumptions again poor muffin

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:36:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I am? according to you? or are you mindreading me? LMAO assumptions again poor muffin No mind reading involved. Your long illustrious record of slinging bullshit speaks for itself. I'd crown you, but the only proper crown would be made of bullshit and I'm sure you wouldn't want that in your hair. By the way, thanks for your concession, again: quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic google wasnt touched... I had the link already for some other jerk ...

WhoreMods -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:38:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods More the opposite, I'd have thought: weren't you saying a page back that you don't want the miscreants, shit stirrers and whoever else posts on here stinking up your blog? I don't remember the words "stinking up" (actually, I said I didn't want to "allow access" to the aforementioned ne'er-do-wells), but I could be mistaken. That to the side, who is anyone to tell me not to post here? I could be wrong, it's been a long time since I read the complete T.O.S., but I'm almost positive such a "statement" is in violation thereof (I know such statements USED TO be). Thanks for checkin' in, though. I think it's considered customary to provide a link to the source you're quoting, in the P&R dungeon, if not elsewhere on these forums: hell, it's not like anybody's going to even pretend to look at it if you do, is it?

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:40:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I think it's considered customary to provide a link to the source you're quoting, in the P&R dungeon, if not elsewhere on these forums: hell, it's not like anybody's going to even pretend to look at it if you do, is it? Customary, when quoting someone else. I reserve the right to plagiarize *myself* . Thanks again, I LOVE that line!

WhoreMods -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:44:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I think it's considered customary to provide a link to the source you're quoting, in the P&R dungeon, if not elsewhere on these forums: hell, it's not like anybody's going to even pretend to look at it if you do, is it? Customary, when quoting someone else. I reserve the right to plagiarize *myself* . Thanks again, I LOVE that line! Fair point. If you can't rip your own stuff off, you've likely been working for somebody you shouldn't have and signed a WFH contract.

Lucylastic -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I am? according to you? or are you mindreading me? LMAO assumptions again poor muffin No mind reading involved. Your long illustrious record of slinging bullshit speaks for itself. I'd crown you, but the only proper crown would be made of bullshit and I'm sure you wouldn't want that in your hair. By the way, thanks for your concession, again: quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic google wasnt touched... I had the link already for some other jerk ... yawwwwn life is so hard for you isnt it muffin

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 12:56:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Fair point. If you can't rip your own stuff off, you've likely been working for somebody you shouldn't have and signed a WFH contract. Even under that kind of contract, I'd still be able to write for myself, depending upon whether or not there's a "Non-Competition Clause". Plenty of people work for more than one publication or work for a publication and write books or start a blog and then, get picked up by a publication or work for a publication and "ghost write" other stuff ...

WhoreMods -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 1:02:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods Fair point. If you can't rip your own stuff off, you've likely been working for somebody you shouldn't have and signed a WFH contract. Even under that kind of contract, I'd still be able to write for myself, depending upon whether or no there's a "Non-Competition Clause". Plenty of people work for more than one publication or work for a publication and write books or start a blog and then, get picked up by a publication or work for a publication and "ghost write" other stuff ... Very true, but on the other hand, it's said that Mark Hammil has to pay George Lucas every time he looks in the mirror to shave, and Alan Moore is still bitching that DC will hold the rights to Watchmen until the heat death of the universe thirty year after the last issue was published. My point (which either wasn't clear, or wasn't funny, or both) is that you can't quote your own work if you've written it under a contract that gives the publishers/production company/whoever else ownership of the property. It's always struck me as hilariously and appalling wrong, but it does happen.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 1:11:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods My point (which either wasn't clear, or wasn't funny, or both) is that you can't quote your own work if you've written it under a contract that gives the publishers/production company/whoever else ownership of the property. It's always struck me as hilariously and appalling wrong, but it does happen. I would think that "blog" would make it obvious that in this particular instance, I'm beholden to no one, but, you've been decent (in this conversation) so, I will tell you: The publication for which I work encourages outside work (especially novels and such) because any increase in perceived value of an author, automatically raises the publication's "stock". I've never been able to write novels because I lack the imagination. I wrote one for almost twenty years before someone else made a movie that had, essentially, the same plot as my novel. So, it seemed prudent to give up on being the next Truman Capote. You're right about "indentured servitude" type contracts out there. They exist. I've been lucky enough to be able to walk away from any that may have been offered. I only started making any money writing about ten-twelve years ago and I already had a "day time" job which paid me well enough that I could pursue writing as a passion, instead of a necessary way to supplement my income (although, I did decide, at one point, to go ahead and bite the bullet and get into "legitimate media" which is why I am where I am, now).

jlf1961 -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 1:16:13 PM)
Some years ago, we in this district had a congressman by the name of Stenholm who had been the congressman for a number of terms. Okay, granted he was a democrat. A democrat that had a nasty habit of pissing off the DNC. You see, this particular democrat had the nasty habit of contacting his constituents every time there was a something that came up in congress that directly affected his district. And he did not just contact the Dems of the district, but all voters. Anyway, it was his voting record in congress that pissed off the DNC because, it seemed that he voted the way the district felt on a topic. So every primary, the DNC pushed for his replacement by a toe the line democrat, and every primary the democrats of the district kept choosing him as the one to run. He probably would still be in congress if the district had not been redrawn in such a manner as to make the GOP the majority party, and much to the surprise of the GOP, the guy that replaced him ended up not voting in any way shape or fashion they way the GOP wanted. His vote went to what ever benefited his home town, which was not necessarily benefiting the entire district. So the former congressmen from the old independent districts got voted out and a complete self serving ass got in.

bounty44 -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 1:16:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods I think it's considered customary to provide a link to the source you're quoting, in the P&R dungeon, if not elsewhere on these forums: hell, it's not like anybody's going to even pretend to look at it if you do, is it? Customary, when quoting someone else. I reserve the right to plagiarize *myself* . Thanks again, I LOVE that line! when you identify yourself as the author of the work you are quoting Michael, that takes care of the notion of "self plagiarizing" which ultimately means, passing off what are you writing as new work without attribution.

DaddySatyr -> RE: A Return to the Way Things Aught to Be (11/30/2017 1:21:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Some years ago, we in this district had a congressman by the name of Stenholm who had been the congressman for a number of terms. Okay, granted he was a democrat. A democrat that had a nasty habit of pissing off the DNC. You see, this particular democrat had the nasty habit of contacting his constituents every time there was a something that came up in congress that directly affected his district. And he did not just contact the Dems of the district, but all voters. Anyway, it was his voting record in congress that pissed off the DNC because, it seemed that he voted the way the district felt on a topic. So every primary, the DNC pushed for his replacement by a toe the line democrat, and every primary the democrats of the district kept choosing him as the one to run. He probably would still be in congress if the district had not been redrawn in such a manner as to make the GOP the majority party, and much to the surprise of the GOP, the guy that replaced him ended up not voting in any way shape or fashion they way the GOP wanted. His vote went to what ever benefited his home town, which was not necessarily benefiting the entire district. So the former congressmen from the old independent districts got voted out and a complete self serving ass got in. That's the kind of congress critter, democrat that he is/was, I applaud. Years ago, we had a congressman that used to send mailers almost every month with return-addressed envelopes - franking privileges (those free mail rights) must be great - that we were asked to send back with our opinions on the issues. I was a bit young, at the time and there was no interwebz so, it wasn't easy to track his votes and, I admit, I always thought it was just a way of opinion polling, but I guess it could have been along the same lines. Things were different, back in the 70s.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875