The BBC reports:
Bolton transgender councillor comment treated as hate incident
A comment in which a transgender Tory councillor was called “he” by a Labour rival is being treated as a hate incident by police.
Zoe Kirk-Robinson, 35, said Guy Harkin, 69, referred to her twice as a man in a debate at a Bolton Council meeting.
The hate crime ambassador, who transitioned 10 years ago, said the comments on 24 August “hurt a lot” and she reported them to police.
Mr Harkin has apologised. Police said “hate incidents are not tolerated”.[…]
Mr Harkin said: “I inadvertently referred to her as a he during a heated debate.
“As soon as I was made aware of it, I apologised… It is something and nothing.”
A GMP spokeswoman said: “Hate incidents will not be tolerated in Greater Manchester.”
Metro takes the story further:
Councillor refuses to take punishment for calling transgender woman ‘he’ instead of ‘she’
After reporting Cllr Harkin to Greater Manchester Police, officers downgraded it to a ‘hate incident’ rather than a ‘hate crime’ and advised the pair to talk it out through a restorative justice programme.
But the former Labour mayor has refused his punishment, maintaining that his comments were just a ‘slip of the tongue.’
The political affiliations of the parties add spice to this story, don’t you think? When Tony Blair’s Labour government introduced a purely subjective definition of a racist incident following the MacPherson Report, and then in 2006 added new provisions to the Public Order Act 1986 to cover “hatred” based on sexual orientation in the same way that racial hatred had been covered before, I doubt the legislators envisaged the roles of denouncer and denouncee falling this way round. Perhaps, too, they did not envisage that things would go so far that a misspoken word would bring the police to the council chamber. I expect they were quite sure that these laws would never be used against people like them.
For Heaven’s sake, sometimes I call myself “he”. It’s a hard habit to break.
So, just to be clear: the councillor in question is a man pretending to be a woman, and it’s a crime in the UK to say so?
Ellen, Yes, and given his age, 69, Cllr Harkin’s habits were probably formed in a very different social environment.
I identify as a giraffe. I won’t tell anyone which sex. It changes with my mood, the seasons and the moon cycle. Therefore when people try to identify me, I will be insulted and demand an apology.
Hillary Clinton has promised that I will be appointed to her new Animal Rights Commission that she is setting up, should she win. I will be paid $187,000 a year, but that is way below my worth, so I will complain upon accepting this position in her administration.
Oh I forgot, my name is Mohammed the Giraffe.
Or, as one VERY earthy lady that I know would say … “A cock in a frock”. Is that more politically correct? I can’t keep up nowadays.
Seriously, if you have a Y chromosome, then genetically you are male. All the wishing wishes in the world cannot alter that fact. Kirk-Robinson wants the world to change to suit “it”. I wouldn’t mind the same privilege.
Ken Hagler, I feel no obligation to pronounce on what Cllr Kirk-Robinson “really” is. I’m quite happy to make reasonable efforts to refer to anyone in the way that they prefer, which in her case is clearly “her”.
I have great objections to her calling the police down on a man in order to assuage her hurt feelings.
As to whether it actually is a crime, I’m not quite sure. Few people seem to be. Note that Cllr Harkin is pushing back and nothing seems to have happened to him yet. I think that, as so often, the process is the punishment. The SJWs don’t have to win their cases in order to intimidate. I said something very similar in this post about Baptist street preacher Dale McAlpine:
When unwelcome words = “crime”, then you have no free speech rights…PERIOD.
And this is where the entire internet will be come this October 1st when scumbag Obama hands over ‘the keys’ to the internet to UN thugs.
Chromosomal sex is not totally reliable. I know one XY woman — she’s been female since birth, the doctors told her so. She had androgen insensitivity syndrome, so she totally missed out on her masculine development. Well, mostly — she is a very large woman. Then there are the XO (usually somewhat underdeveloped females — look up Kleinfelter Syndrome), the XYs with AIS, the XXY people, the XYY people (they’re called “supermales” sometimes) and the mosaics.
As for “A cock in a frock”, I have no certainties about a transgender woman; some do, some don’t, and some never wear frocks. But most MTF transsexuals are cockless. They prefer it that way.
Don’t even try to be politically correct here (not that you were). The world of trans is as much a political snakepit as any other identity group. That’s why I stay away from it.
PhilB,
‘Him’ or ‘her’ refers to the person, not genital appendages nor chomesomes. The person/the psyche, usually corresponds to the genetic makeup, but sometimes it doesn’t. Transgenderism is, arguably, a physiological problem, not a psychological one. ‘Prenatial hormone flush and all that. The brains of M/F transsexuals are ‘different’ than those who consider themselves male inside and out.
And BTW, the vast majority of transsexuals undermine the Marxist claptrap that says gender is “purely a social construct”, the product of society and whim. Rather, every transsexual I know* insists that this is not whim or wish, but rather they ARE and have always been the gender opposite of the body they find themselves in, and their lifes have been largely shit because of this.
(With a name like Thailover, ya gotta know some transsexuals).
For this reason, and also for the ‘reason’ so-called of pure bigotry, we have the TERFs,
(Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists).
(As if 3rdW feminists need a reason to hate).
I’ve known a lot of gay people, and I know my share of M-F Trans.
Trans ARE NOT gay men in drag, or who merely want to be more feminine by pretending to be women.
Nor are authenticly Trans merely “confused”. (Though confusion through adolensence is common in all sexual orientations).
I’m an atheist, but I think that one can sense a person’s “soul” (for lack of a better word) when in the room with them. Almost all transsexual women I’ve ever been around OBVIOUSLY has a woman’s soul, a woman’s “vibe” about her.
“As to whether it actually is a crime, I’m not quite sure. Few people seem to be.”
I’m goddamned sure it isn’t legitimately criminal to voice an unpopular opinion. Tell me which aspect is legitimately criminal, being “allowed” to voice one’s authentic thoughts, or to think that which one’s alleged keepers have not sanctioned?
Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are necessary extensions and consequences of owning oneself.
Someone owns my life, by right; either me or some other body (body meaning person or group). If others “own me”, then I am a slave. However, there is no such thing as owning another person’s life by right, as “the right to infringe on the rights of others” is a self defeating contradiction that undermines the concept of rights itself. Since contradictions must be logically false, then I own my own life de-facto and I sure as hell have the right to think and speak independently, and any “body” that makes that criminal is ITSELF criminal.
Does any of your talk and logic matter?
They have you on the ropes.
Soon they will publish what you may or may not say.
Re-education classes and self criticism classes will follow. Plus punishment for failure to inform on your friends and neighbors.
Ken Hagler & John Galt 3.
Realize that the “trans argument” is not the “Progressive” gender argument of personal arbitrary whims and alleged “social construct”, but rather it’s the diametric opposite of that.
Most gays and Trans wouldn’t choose the path they find themselves on, as it’s one of personal difficulty, to put it mildly. To quote Billy from the movie Predator, “I wouldn’t wish that on a broke-dick dog”.
I’ve seen stats that say that 41% of trans attempt or commit suicide sometime in their lifetime. That is not the behavior of people just trying to be edgy or different or someone exploring a fetish.
The truth is, there IS NO REASON to think that there would be no transsexuals in the world.
Why?
Because sex shows every sign of having evolved heuristically rather than being a divine, flawless plan from on-high. Sex DOESN’T NEED to be 100% efficient, just efficient enough. Ergo the preponderance of gay people in no way threatens to end the human species on earth. The fact that men in general are willing to “stick it in anything” will see to that.
And, please, lets be intelligent enough to make the distinction between actual PEOPLE living with said conditions and who would like nothing better than to be able to take a dump without it being a political action, and the asshat political activists who merely wish to stir the pot, to piss people off, to divide and conquer and, basically, to be activist fuck-faces.
“Does any of your talk and logic matter?”
It’s called philosophy. Does philosophy matter?
What could possibly matter more?
Is it allowed to address a man as “she”? Or is it hate speech only the other way round ? I’m puzzled.
This Councillor should have been addressed as “the idiot”. This, seems to me, is gender neutral and contains no “hate speech”.
Thailover, September 4, 2016 at 1:05 am:
Amen to both your points. :>)
Yes, the Internet thing is worrisome. I’m sort of supposing that somebody will do an end-run around using it in a way that allows the control undoubtedly planned for by the New World Order’s rulers.
standard english answer: fuck you
“As to whether it actually is a crime, I’m not quite sure.”
That is quite shocking to read in a blog called Samizdata.
luckylucky, I assumed Natalie meant she’s not sure whether it’s legally recognized as a crime.
“The world of trans is as much a political snakepit as any other identity group. That’s why I stay away from it.”
When I was growing up, all kinds of strange things could be seen at the county fair. Midgets, pregnant strippers, bearded ladies, two-headed chickens and my favorite: The Kid From Borneo……all for only 25 cents.
IIRC, when the concept of hate crime was first introduced (back in the 90s?), the purpose was to highlight and legally differentiate actions that were already legally defined as crimes, based on their motives. An unnecessary and harmful step in my opinion, but nonetheless logical when beginning from certain philosophical premises.
However, what we are seeing in this case, and as some of the comments here show, is total confusion regarding the question what is a crime, and more specifically, what is a hate crime – IOW, whereas before hatred was still considered a motive, it may now have been elevated to the legal status of a crime? Or is only the speech part of the incident that is considered a crime, and hatred remains a mere motive? Or is it both?
Thailover & Luckylucky
What Julie near Chicago said at 7:16. Obviously. Why did you think I put the whole post up at all? Why did you think I finished that very comment with the words “Once freedom goes it becomes a matter of elite fashion just who the police harass.”?
Building on what Alisa said at 8:14, from the point of view of SJWs the legal vagueness is a feature not a bug.
Yep.
BTW, what is a ‘hate crime ambassador’?…
It is a failure of our justice system that we cannot prosecute the police for wasting police time.
Alisa, according to Google and Bolton police it is someone who volunteers to raise awareness of hate crime and encourage more people to report it and access support, and not as the name suggests someone who presents his credentials to the Court of St James on behalf of the Republic of Hate Crime. It’s almost as malformed a title as “Domestic Violence Advocate”.
Oh boy. I regret my asking, Natalie – but I only have myself to blame :-/
Wait, how did that Humpty Dumpty bit go in Through the Looking Glass?
I’m sure Blair’s government knew exactly what it was doing.
The effect of these silly ‘hate’ laws has been to make many people of all political persuasions scared of speaking out when their views don’t chime with those of the PC elite.
A population cowed into silence by Orwellian laws suits our new breed of intolerant, authoritarian politicians, police and little Hitlers employed in local and central government just fine.
Would it be possible to tie up the system in knots?
The definition of a hate crime seems to be entirely subjective: if someone says he’s been a victim of a hate crime, then he has. So think of something – anything – and go along and report it. The police may not take action but, given the current political climate, I don’t think they would dare not investigate it.
I have been in all male situations (mostly of the sporting variety) where one of the team has said, brazenly, to all the other males (including me), “Come on, girls.”
That was many years ago, but just to think if I was in that situation now I could have been so offended! I could have lain down on the ground and kicked my legs and cried, or I could have called the cops. Oh, curses to the lost opportunities of youth!
1) I think the accused councillor should have told the offended councillor that “the lady doth protest too much”. Would one who simply believed their (observe my tact 🙂 ) own claim call the police for such trivia (apologised-for trivia, according to the report).
2) Much climate change science is bunk. Much past psychology science, some of it aggressively presented and politically fashionable in its day, is a wrong or even silly misinterpretation of data (often, data on people with very real problems). Free speech would help the scientific truth emerge over time. Sadly, this farrago affects science too.
3) Thailover, September 4, 2016 at 1:25 am says “Almost all transsexual women I’ve ever been around OBVIOUSLY has a woman’s soul, a woman’s “vibe” about her.”
The only trans in my current acquaintance retains a very male vibe/soul/whatever to me. YMMV. Much more importantly, the story implies that my view is a hate crime – and Thailover’s “Almost” is a hate crime; presumably it should have been “All” not “Almost all”.
Hang on. Isn’t there something very odd going on here? Surely, Ms Robinson would refer to itself by the pronoun ‘I’? The pronoun ‘I’ is gender neutral. If it wanted to be addressed as a female, it would have to ask other people to do so. How does it do that? It would have to say something like, “Despite the fact that I have male bits, from now on, please refer to me as ‘she’, or ‘her’, etc” But why should the other person agree? Why should not the other person say, “I have known your for years and years. You have always been ‘he’ to me, and that is how I still see you, whatever you might be wearing. I shall continue to call you ‘he’, ‘him'” Where does hate come into it?
As this ‘hate crime’ goes, the old saying applies. “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.” Once it gets well into enemy action territory, a fuss may be warranted; but once is at worst micro-aggression, and twice mini-aggression.
Junican, good point. Niall, don’t let attempts to be tactful override your perfectly good knowledge of English. “He” is the (impersonal–good catch, Junican) pronoun of unspecified — unspecified — gender. As such it is applicable to every representative of the human race, or of any group of humans which may contain persons of any gender. Then again, there is the pronoun “he” — the pronoun whose antecedent is specifically male.
These two words are homonyms. You know. Two words spelled and pronounced the same, but having quite different referents. 🙂
Your British laws are nothing, compared to Australia’s! Our racial vilification act has the notorious section called 18c, allowing for prosecution over words likely to cause someone offence! Our libertarian Senator, David Leyonhjelme, has decided that some comments in the media about him could offend someone, and so is taking the matter to the Human Rights Commission. The result will take a while, but the good Senator has time on his hands.
A general comment: notice how bringing force into the equation exacerbates the very hostility that “hate speech” laws are ostensibly there to combat. Laws and heavy pressure demanding that people submit to certain ideas and practices has the predictable effect of making them rebel against those ideas and assert the opposite ones.
Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker!) Gray,
Yes I had noticed the admirable Senator Leyonhjelm already. With a name like that, one would. Apparently it means “lion-helm” and does not have a final “e”.
I hope he goes to jail for his crime so that all can know the power of the Australian Human Rights Commission!
The Spectator did a piece on this in the aftermath of Brexit after the alleged surge in hate crimes – it’s interesting – especially;
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/the-real-hate-crime-scandal/
‘Interesting’ doesn’t even begin to describe it. ‘Appalling’ is more like it.
Julie near Chicago (September 4, 2016 at 9:58 pm), you are quite right that in Victorian times, many grammarians prescribed ‘he’ for a singular of unspecified gender when the group was gendered – especially, I think, in the US. For example, in “Patty and Priscilla” by Jean Webster, Patty, complaining in the abstract about a return call that etiquette is forcing her to pay, finds herself saying that:
“… a peaceable citizen, who only desires to gang his ain gait, should, upon receipt of an entirely unsolicited invitation, suddenly find it incumbent upon him to put on his best dress and his best hat and gloves, in order to call upon people he barely knows.” “Your genders”, said Priscilla, “are a trifle moiled.” “That”, said Patty, “is the fault of the language. The logic, I think, you will find correct.”
In those days, she’d have been in no danger of accusations of hate speech for getting it right (or wrong – though the latter might have seen her marked down one point in her next essay). However there was always another tradition. Near the end of “Sense and Sensibility”, Jane Austen writes of Elinor not pursuing a review-of-past-error discussion with her mother and sister “satisfied that each was conscious of her error” (quoted from memory but I’ll answer for the ‘her’). And the use of ‘their’ for one abstract (so ungendered) member of a possibly-mixed-gendered group is I think mediaeval (when it was written ‘her’) and has coexisted with the 17th-century and after ‘he’ in English usage. So while your usage is undoubtedly correct, I can quote examples (as old and, I think, older) of my usage and would claim mine is not wrong.
Of course, we both know that the sort of person who would take the OP story seriously would foam at the mouth if told to accept ‘he’ as ungendered-singular on the authority of some Victorian grammarian. 🙂
Junican’s ‘it’ usage (September 4, 2016 at 8:14 pm) is logically defensible in cases where neutering would be the functionally-accurate description of what has been done. A more PC rendering would presumably be she-it-he or she-he-it (obviously, it would be very un-PC to put ‘he’ first, so no third arrangement 🙂 ). Logically, it would seem absurd for the PC to object to these inclusive descriptions – though if either were said quickly, I fear they would. 🙂
In my post above, “a trifle moiled” should be “a trifle mixed” – spell-checkers !!!
I don’t see that anyone has a call to be interested in what’s up a skirt they don’t intend to put their hand up; all other skirts are ‘she’ as a matter of courtesy. It’s really just a name change, after all, and simple courtesy tells us to call people by the name they want.
Personally, I could care less if some guy wants to dress up as a woman and change his name, because that’s really none of my business. If there were a law requiring me to play along by pretending he was a woman myself, that would be making it my business.
Also, I’d be wary of referring to anyone in a skirt as “she” on an island with Scotsmen living on it.
Niall, Julie is correct; “he” is the correct singular English pronoun for someone of unspecified and unknown gender. And it’s that latter qualifier which makes “the logic” (Patty’s phrase) in your quote from “Patty and Priscilla” incorrect. In that instance, while the specific individual was unknown the gender was not. Hence, correct grammar would have been to use “she” and “her” in that context. And “their” is, and always has been, a plural pronoun. Sure, you can find old examples of incorrect usage, but that proves nothing.
I am getting annoyed at all this “guy dressed up as a woman” bullshit. I am a bloody post-op transsexual, almost twenty years now. My clothes are women’s clothes (except, alas, for my shoes), and if I came up to you and said “I’m a MAN, dammit — I would get a horse-laugh rather than agreement.
You arses (none of you women, it appears) would be glad to call me a man if you’d read my biography. You might even do it if I showed up. But you’d backpedal so hard your tires would burn up from friction if I demanded it.
Look at the way you’ve been behaving. Then go look at my website. There’s a photo of me on the home page, and if you click “little” in the header, you’ll end up at another. Do I look all that incongruous? All that scornworthy?
A “he” during the flow of conversation is one thing. Knowing, obstinate, repetitive impoliteness is quite another. I know one of the joys of the Internet is that nobody knows you’re a dog. But if you’re an arse, it shows.
Laird (September 5, 2016 at 6:35 pm), in my quote, Patty is correctly using a usage taught in the US at the time (the book is set in a girl’s college of the period; the author attended such a college and is faithfully reproducing – and joking about -what she was taught). You are also correctly reflecting another usage that was taught – as does the Jane Austen extract I quoted. The ‘their’ usage predates the formalisation of either usage – and coexisted with examples of them – so I calling its being simply assertable wrong.
PersonFromPorlock September 5, 2016 at 5:37 pm: “all other skirts are ‘she’ as a matter of courtesy. It’s really just a name change, after all, and simple courtesy tells us to call people by the name they want.”
That would apply to ‘Zoe’ – presumably not this person’s birth name. In English-speaking countries, changing your name legally has been available since long long before any of us were born. Other countries impose gender and other restrictions on name changes, but (typically of the less statist approach of old English culture, that we are now losing) not us. (For example, in Raymond Chandler’s “The Big Sleep”, one assumes the minor gay character Corole Lundgren was probably not christened ‘Carole’ but took the name to advertise his inclinations.) A person’s name can reasonably be regarded as their property.
Category membership is another matter. There is basic philosophy: am I entitled to order you all to regard me as black if I say I ‘feel’ Black? There is one’s own assessment of individual cases: could ‘Zoe’ be faking it – just messing with the PC Labour councillors (as Natalie says, ‘Ironies abound’) – probably not, but presumably it is a hate crime ever to suspect that in any case. In between these extremes is a vast range where the politeness of ‘let us agree to disagree’ might be useful but the aggression of “Believe what you’re told, say what you’re told, about whoever is whatever, or be arrested” is instead offered.
Ellen (September 5, 2016 at 6:54 pm), noone in normal conversation would address you by either pronoun – it’s a very old and universal custom that it is rude to address someone in the third person, and a sign of insanity to refer to one self in the third person, so, as Junican (September 4, 2016 at 8:14 pm) indicates, the situation is either contrived by one party or another (in which case, any rudeness would lie with the contriver) or arises legitimately – as, for example, in this thread where it is relevant to the subject, in which case rudeness lies with the opponents of free speech in my book. I think I’m clever, courteous, insightful – but others may have another view of me. We all have a view of ourselves – and in a free society, some others may agree with our view of ourselves while other others may not.
With instead being the operative word worthy of emphasis. Just as bad money drives out good money, so does compulsion drive out civility and kindness.
Now duly emphasized.
Ellen, there’s a difference between rudeness and criminality. And when rudeness is criminalized we’re all well and truly screwed.
No argument there. Perhaps we should have a revival of code duello? If the offended had more skin in the game, they might not take offense so easily.
Unfortunately, my sword-work has gone downhill in recent years. Perhaps bazookas?
An effective code duello over the internet – with real skin in the game, not just the loss of a D&D character – would no doubt do wonders for netiquette. I fear such a development will not come soon – and could have some downsides if ever it did. Statism might (might!) be absent, but even if 99% of the PC twitter mob fled at the mere prospect, the remaining 1% could make life tedious for a time, though I’m sure we noble courageous souls would defeat them in the end.
Nice idea – maybe not so practical just now.
🙂
Works for me, Ellen. But too much collateral damage with bazookas.
Just because I dislike the police does not mean I am willing to accept the nonsense of the MacPherson report.
This vile P.C. culture must end.
People must not live their lives in fear that every word they say may bring them ruin.
Finis.
That deserves to be enshrined atop every comment page on the Internet.