Mixed feelings about this. First things first, misogyny and online harassment in the wider “internet” is rampant, and yes I believe someone has to do sth about it. I am not sure a super-surveillance nation state expanding its definition of extremism is what I wished for though. What if it was Russia? On top of that: This coming from the highly transphobic UK rubs me the wrong way. I am not sure they will not label transgender rights activism as extremism as well, given how many outlets in the UK entertain Rowling’s delusion that it is a misogynistic movement, no less while UK TERFs’ litigation is piling up, accusing trans people of harassing them. I am not buying it, yet.

Depends on the jurisdiction. In many countries directly insulting someone in his face is a misdemeanor or similar level violation.

Misgendering someone is an insult like calling someone names, or bad mouthing someone. There is no fundamental right to insult other people, even when you rationalize it with beliefs that happen to be protected.

For example,

I might believe whatever I want about my neighbor, eg that he is a fascist cunt, and I am allowed even to say so in private.

But saying it to his face is like a breach of the rule of law, as is saying so to others. I might think he should be lynched daily, but saying so might well be a crime.

You might even say that ignoring him in the elevator when it is customary to greet your neighbor, although not illegal, it is considered just rude by society standards.

So at the very least we have a teacher being systematically rude to his students for religious reasons (or “Gender critical”, all the same), thus making him a dick. See my recent comment on Maya Forstater for some quite similar case, only this asshole is aggravated because he is in a position to scar kids.

Even if your belief is protected like religion, or you push it to be (TERFism), you have no right to violate another person’s dignity because of your beliefs.

Bigots are bitter about it, and that is why they want to destroy the constitution and the rule of law to have their way. By extension they are against some basic principles like freedom of religion (of others).

Plus, there is research that shows that respecting pronouns is a mental health protector for trans and non-binary teenagers, so this make the teacher a perpetrator of demonstrably abusive behavior towards his students. For these reasons I believe he was quite rightly discontinued, and I would believe the same if he were outright terminated.

Rowling has been silent on X since August 7, when she shared a post from researcher Maya Forstater, who was fired from her job after making anti-trans statements.

(my emphases)

I don’t know where Newsweek takes its facts from but this is another lie pushed by the TERF propaganda machine. Forstater was a tax expert whose contract was not renewed after she was horrible to her trans and non-binary colleagues. (Yes the ‘researcher’ wording is put there on purpose, to amplify the perception that her freedom of speech was violated, or as Rowling likes to put it ‘her livelihood was threatened for disagreeing with the trans lobby’.)

She then went to a labor tribunal court or sth, to claim that her belief in the “immutability and reality of sex” is a protected belief, and made a fuss about being fired for her beliefs, when in reality she was merely discontinued for being a dick to the people she worked with. Her Twitter feed was full of conflating trans people with rapists and pedophiles.

The first judge took into account her definition that requires working plumbing to name someone a woman, and consulted a biological expert, impartial to gender identity, that precluded any scientific basis to Forstater’s childish views on biological sex. The judge deemed her belief is “unworthy of respect in a democratic society”, but later, an appeal court said she has a right to believe that but she still cannot misgender people.

Critical legal theorists suggested that the appeal court held a very low bar as for what opinions “worthy of respect” should be, and that its ruling should be better interpreted as “marginally better than an outright nazi”.

It is a red flag for both the author and the outlet that they lead with a snippet of propaganda which is as false as unsubstantiated claims that Khelif’s trans or DSD. So should we conclude both toxic narratives are pushed by the same epicenters?

Why do you think administration of testosterone and testosterone inducing drugs is forbidden for professional athletes?

Lol this has just as merit as “why do you think they don’t take homosexuals in the military”. Um… because it only takes a bunch of prejudiced guys to believe so in order to regulate so, ever since the Old Testament.

Is the effect comparable across sports? Are the effects meaningful for high-testosterone women and/or trans women in sports? I doubt it, so do most organizations I cited.

Sure, I don’t care about individual studies, due to publication bias and statistical error. I care only about reviews and meta analysis where study hacking and design bias are controlled. Some of the studies will show a positive effect of testosterone. This is included in the studies I posted. A consistent result should show invariably in numerous controlled studies. Some nazis also publish studies in shithole journals, reiterating their 4chan self-complementing arguments. The review I cited show that the effects of testosterone are flaky at best. Also, testosterone in trans women is less than cisgender women, so this is also useless as a premise for either trans women or high-testosterone cis women in sports. So it is a flaky premise, that means nothing for the policies under discussion.

Anecdotal evidence? Marketing scheme? Performance enhancing drug manufacturer snake oil? How does this respond to a score of peer review evidence. People everywhere in the world believe in astrology and crystals as well. So what?

I think so, yes.

Quoting from Transgender Woman Athletes and Elite Sport

The biomedical perspective views the physiology of trans women’s bodies as the source of perceived unfairness, with medicalized interventions (such as estrogen supplementation and testosterone suppression) as the resolution. More specifically, this perspective holds that sexual dimorphism between those assigned male at birth (AMAB) and those assigned female at birth (AFAB) is the reason for athletic differences. Testosterone measures and boundaries are typically chosen as defining characteristics of manhood and womanhood in the context of sport and are used as the predominant marker to predict and level sex-related athletic advantage and the means for inclusion criteria. The research findings in the biomedical area are inconclusive. Studies which make conclusions on pre- and post-hormone replacement therapy (HRT) advantage held by trans women athletes have used either cis men or sedentary trans women as proxies for elite trans women athletes. These group references are not only inappropriate for the context but produce conclusions that cannot be applied to elite trans women athletes. Further, there is little scientific understanding about the attributes or properties of HRT, namely testosterone suppression and estrogen supplementation, on the physiology and athletic ability of trans women athletes. This ignores the potential for estrogen supplementation to reduce Lean Body Mass (LBM), and for testosterone suppression to produce holistic health disadvantages.

Quoting from Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies

Currently, there is no direct or consistent research suggesting transgender female individuals (or male individuals) have an athletic advantage at any stage of their transition (e.g. cross-sex hormones, gender-confirming surgery) and, therefore, competitive sport policies that place restrictions on transgender people need to be considered and potentially revised.

Quoting Scientific American Trans Girls Belong on Girls’ Sports Teams my emphasis

The notion of transgender girls having an unfair advantage comes from the idea that testosterone causes physical changes such as an increase in muscle mass. But transgender girls are not the only girls with high testosterone levels. An estimated 10 percent of women have polycystic ovarian syndrome, which results in elevated testosterone levels. They are not banned from female sports. Transgender girls on puberty blockers, on the other hand, have negligible testosterone levels. Yet these state bills would force them to play with the boys. Plus, the athletic advantage conferred by testosterone is equivocal. As Katrina Karkazis, a senior visiting fellow and expert on testosterone and bioethics at Yale University explains, “Studies of testosterone levels in athletes do not show any clear, consistent relationship between testosterone and athletic performance. Sometimes testosterone is associated with better performance, but other studies show weak links or no links. And yet others show testosterone is associated with worse performance.” The bills’ premises lack scientific validity.

Quoting from UK-transphobe-funded Strength, Power, and Aerobic Capacity of Transgender Athletes my emphasis

Results: In this cohort of athletes, TW had similar testosterone concentration (TW 0.7±0.5 nmol/L, CW 0.9±0.4 nmol/), higher oestrogen (TW 742.4±801.9 pmol/L, CW 336.0±266.3 pmol/L, p=0.045), higher absolute handgrip strength (TW 40.7±6.8 kg, CW 34.2±3.7 kg, p=0.01), lower forced expiratory volume in 1 s:forced vital capacity ratio (TW 0.83±0.07, CW 0.88±0.04, p=0.04), lower relative jump height (TW 0.7±0.2 cm/kg; CW 1.0±0.2 cm/kg, p<0.001) and lower relative V̇O2max (TW 45.1±13.3 mL/kg/min/, CW 54.1±6.0 mL/kg/min, p<0.001) compared with CW athletes. TM had similar testosterone concentration (TM 20.5±5.8 nmol/L, CM 24.8±12.3 nmol/L), lower absolute hand grip strength (TM 38.8±7.5 kg, CM 45.7±6.9 kg, p=0.03) and lower absolute V̇O2max (TM 3635±644 mL/min, CM 4467±641 mL/min p=0.002) than CM.

Conclusion: While longitudinal transitioning studies of transgender athletes are urgently needed, these results should caution against precautionary bans and sport eligibility exclusions that are not based on sport-specific (or sport-relevant) research.

So even those highly motivated to prove trans women are disproportionately advantaged have difficulty tapping it. As for combat sports, don’t forget Joe Rogan as well female MMA athletes ended up apologizing to Fallon Fox for all the transphobic BS they had spewed at the time.

What was your point again?

Right enough, I came across a Wikipedia article “Politics of Harry Potter” yesterday, it was weird to read. Especially under the light of Rowling’s (um… post 2015ish?) transphobic saga, most of the cringe article reads as a complete trainwreck in hindsight, since Rowling had been celebrated by the Left and condemned by the Right at the time. Hilarious.

Some random quotes for your entertainment

Bill O’Reilly joined in the political fray over Harry Potter character Albus Dumbledore’s outing by asking if it was part of a “gay agenda” to indoctrinate children. He called J. K. Rowling a provocateur for telling fans about Dumbledore’s sexuality after the books were written. His guest, Entertainment Weekly Senior Editor Tina Jordan, called his “indoctrination” claims “a shallow argument”, saying “indoctrination is a very strong word” because “we all know gay people, whether we know it or not.”[11] O’Reilly continued the following day, saying that the real problem was that Rowling was teaching “tolerance” and “parity for homosexuals with heterosexuals”. His guest, Dennis Miller, said that tolerance was good and didn’t think you could indoctrinate a child into being gay.[12]

(Replace gay for trans in the statement above and try to not roll on the floor laughing)

Catholic fantasy author Regina Doman wrote an essay titled “In Defense of Dumbledore”, in which she argued that the books actually support Catholic teaching on homosexuality because Dumbledore’s relationship with the dark wizard Grindelwald leads to obviously terrible results, as he becomes interested in dark magic himself, neglects his responsibilities towards his younger sister and ultimately causes her death.[46][unreliable source?]

Rowling herself says:

“I do not think I am pessimistic but I think I am realistic about how much you can change deeply entrenched prejudice, so my feeling would be that if someone were a committed racist, possibly Harry Potter is not going to have an effect.”[21][non-primary source needed]

“People like to think themselves superior and that if they can pride themselves in nothing else they can pride themselves on perceived purity.”[25]

“I’ve never thought, ‘It’s time for a post-9/11 Harry Potter book,’ no. But what Voldemort does, in many senses, is terrorism, and that was quite clear in my mind before 9/11 happened… but there are parallels, obviously. I think one of the times I felt the parallels was when I was writing about the arrest of Stan Shunpike, you know? I always planned that these kinds of things would happen, but these have very powerful resonances, given that I believe, and many people believe, that there have been instances of persecution of people who did not deserve to be persecuted, even while we’re attempting to find the people who have committed utter atrocities. These things just happen, it’s human nature. There were some very startling parallels at the time I was writing it.”[78][better source needed]

Might I add, the latter statement (likening DeathEaters to terrorists) and her expressed belief that the trans movement are like the Death Eaters, leads to the logical conclusion that she thinks trans activism is …terrorism? I would not put it past her, and I can’t fathom what a real Ministry could do with such a false equivalence.

I agree on the intersex thing in unsubstantiated, but I still don’t understand. Nazis claim that a person’s sex should be the one “observed” at birth, legally binding so, end of. Do they fucking anywhere state that this definition excludes intersex conditions? This is the very definition of moving goalposts, and they should eternally stuff it after that, like Rowling did.

(Willie Wonka: Watching conservatives claim there is more to biological sex than genitals at birth, lmao)

Let’s not forget that Rowling accuses the “Trans movement” of dehumanizing people, and then goes on to misgender a born woman for her appearance.

(weeps for humanity then laughs hysterically)

[S]ome of you have not understood the books. The Death Eaters claimed, “We have been made to live in secret, and now is our time, and any who stand in our way must be destroyed. If you disagree with us, you must die.” They demonized and dehumanized those who were not like them. I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless, so I’m afraid I stand with the women who are fighting to be heard against threats of loss of livelihood and threats to their safety.

I hope this asshole regrets this quote now. Fuck Rowling.

there are people who would rather explain

There are people who are transphobic to the degree of investigating born women, time and again. (Are you aware of the lesbians “bathroom problem”? It predates the current antitrans moral panic by a decade.) It seems their hatred is so rotten that eventually they are the ones unable to define what a woman is. Now even a vagina at birth is not cutting it. Just not beat around the bush, this is about transphobia, and Khelif naming Rowling, Musk, and Trump in her suit (all of them billionaire transphobes with a platform) is no coincidence.

Ah and don’t forget that trans women are not men either. Too many let that slip in this debate because Khelif is cisgender, but let’s not forget that when nazis say “men are stronger than women” they mean trans women as men. They aren’t. Nazi punks fuck off.

An breakdown of your wannabe argument would be:

A: “Testosterone enhances performance” B: “Men are in most cases stronger than women” C: “A man punching a woman is unsafe”

This vaudeville of ideas have no apparent link between them, the real product of a scattered mind. Scientists are still out about A.

B is a statistical truism at this point irrelevant to the topic, since Khelif is a cisgender woman, and there is no evidence (for the time being) that she is intersex.

C is also immaterial to the discussion. Perhaps you are trying to say that high-testosterone women are “comparable” to men in combat sports, because they pose a greater threat to cisgender women but this is quite the leap, since she is no man.

Testosterone levels vary between individuals. Taking part in combat sports entails a risk of serious injury. The weight categories are in place to make things comparable between opponents, testosterone levels are not. Scientists have questioned whether testosterone level correlate that much to performance outcomes as people think.

The ersatz argument makes no sense.

you are still an asshole

Thank you

the error of explaining your post with the typical US

Sure enough going after your colloquotors’ nationality was an ill-chosen angle, since you wanted to criticize the idea of one-gender, reducing it to Americans. Same goes for another asshole who was quick to attribute it to me supposedly being the speaker of a “genderless” language.

This is a bullshit attitude because you are going for the extra step.

“You don’t get the nuances of our language to understand what this is about. It is because you are not German / you are the native of a genderless language / you are a US defaultist who wants to impose his own view”

For one thing I hardly think English is a genderless language, and second has it crossed your mind someone can speak several languages fluently, some of which “gendered”.

I am not responsible for the lamentable state of internet discussions these days, but next time try to formulate and debunk the opponent idea before spewing several extra thought steps, bringing ad hominem and national origins into the mix, if you don’t want to be spoken to like that.

an error to call me nationalist. I am not

Great, Good for you

There you go

Since this vile comment goes against Lemmy etiquette I need not provide a response. But I will.

how other people call themselves

You must be another level of stupid to write this out. Perhaps you mean, I shouldn’t care what other “governments” or “majorities” want their citizens to call or not-call themselves. Only a nationalist would say such a thing, that your government has the right to self-define (or …impose?) how its people call themselves. This is some true Orban-level shit you managed to fit in your, well, fit.

And, yes, this is a politics issue I want to see in the same maps we monitor US gender politics with.

obviously not German

Very proudly not so. I cherish the fact that German nationalists tend to end up shot or hang, as one of the few things that provide meaning to my post-WWII life. The historical equivalent of a narcissist man-child demanding attention to himself, a real small-dick energy nation, that enthusiastically voted for a mustached idiot for the job. So, not German, and so happy about it.

obviously scared about inclusivity

The fact that you fail to understand this is a pro-inclusivity post means that you are so dump that you would have been euthanized in your own country, less than 100 years ago, unless you enrolled to a specific party of anti-intellectual idiots. Ah I forgot, you already are. Sound survival of the fittest strategy.

Now, let’s sit around waiting you to ridicule yourself with another one of these comments ROFL

That is great to hear

If you people meme format enthusiasts, would you be interested in a MemeFormat community here on Lemmy?

Good point

I see. Do you think it is a honeypot?

But aren’t all these technicalities to undermine the inclusion of one or more genders on the basis of some linguistic purism?

This makes me smirk, because a single course in college linguistics will persuade you there is not bigger amalgamated bastard in town than a human language, which is any non-formal language.

For example, you say they ambiguity of they/them, isn’t this comparable to the ambiguity between you/you in plural/singular.

Ambiguity is like, an inherent feature of any language and there are hundreds of languages that resolve ambiguities based on context. Plus, the scholars said that singular them is in usage since the Middle Ages or sth.

So to me all this is a tension between A and B, where A is either linguistic purism or typographical convenience, and B is always including women/trans/non-binary folks. At the same time most people won’t accept the feminine gender as all-inclusive because of their fears of emasculation.

It is a deeply laughable situation.