On February 24, The Paper learned from the plaintiff Xixi (pseudonym) and his attorney that the plaintiff had received the second-instance judgment from the Suqian Intermediate People’s Court of Jiangsu Province. The court rejected the plaintiff’s appeal and upheld the original judgment of the first instance. .

Previously, the court of first instance held that the expression of “homosexuality is a psychological barrier” in the textbooks published by Jinan University Press was an academic point of view and cognitive divergence, and was not an intellectual error in the scope of book editing.

I agree with the court’s decision. People can have different opinions on one thing, and everyone has the right and freedom to speak. As for the opinion, whether you like it or not is another matter. I respect the homosexual group very much. They are in a weak position in public opinion, and under our existing system framework, they cannot be effectively protected by law in some places. For example, the marriage system does not support same-sex marriage registration. I also have gay friends around me, everyone is pretty normal, no different from ordinary people. Isn’t it that people don’t like the opposite sex, they like the same sex! Who stipulated that humans can only like the opposite sex? However, no matter how much I say, it is my personal opinion. Most people are afraid of being sprayed on the surface and will choose to support it. In fact, they are disgusted in their hearts. For these people, I also respect. Everyone has the right to express their own opinions. You can’t attack frantically or even trample on the other’s dignity just because you have a different position. Even if you don’t like the opinions of others, as long as the other party does not take actual actions and commits no crimes, it is hard to say that this has caused serious harm. Regarding the result of the plaintiff Xixi’s loss of the lawsuit, @猴老湿 has conducted a more detailed legal analysis. Regarding the litigation request of “Xixi’s request for the court to judge the Circumference Company and the publishing house to publicly apologize, take back, correct, and reprint the teaching materials involved in the case,” according to my country’s Tort Liability Law, there is no issue of an apology without causing personal damage to the plaintiff . “Recovering, correcting, and reprinting the teaching materials involved in the case,” the court, based on various considerations, cannot support it. This case reflects a question worth thinking about: the difference between speech and behavior. Now that we talked about the rights protection of disadvantaged groups, let’s talk about feminism by the way. In the jurisprudence class, the teacher told us an interesting debate between two American professors. In short, the feminist professor McKinnon wants to promote local legislation to prohibit the sale, production, and broadcasting of AV works, and the conservative professor Dworkin wants to defend to the death the rights of students (mostly men) to watch pornography. The focus of their dispute is whether pornographic works should be included in the scope of protection of the First Amendment. In other words, is “pornographic literature” a category of speech? If it counts as speech, it is protected by the “freedom of speech” constitution; and vice versa. Professor McKinnon’s first reason is this: A. Pornography has greatly increased the rate of rape and other sexual crimes; Professor Dworkin disagrees with this view. He cross-examined: “McKinnon Although her declaration was extremely strong and powerful, she did not give a reputable scientific research to support it.” Professor McKinnon’s second reason: B. Pornography should be banned, because it prevents women from expressing their opinions and causes them to fall into a sad state of silence. It is pornography that deprives female citizens of their freedom of speech. ; Professor Dworkin pointed out that Professor McKinnon was confusing concepts. For those women who have been insulted or intimidated by pornographic literature and art, of course, they need the protection of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution; whether pornographic literature and art should be banned, and whether people who make and spread pornographic literature and art should be punished are another topic. In other words, the loss of women’s right to speak and the prohibition of pornography still cannot constitute the logic of cause and effect. Professor McKinnon’s third reason: C. Those actresses who participated in the shooting of pornographic films must have been directly and directly sexually tortured in the process, and their degraded and despised scenes have also been recorded. Some women are forced or deceived to engage in this business. Doesn’t this need legal sanctions? need. Dworkin replied affirmatively. But Professor Dworkin continued: “Punishing these criminal acts does not necessarily prohibit pornography.” The production of pornographic films is a commercial activity and is recognized in the United States. And for various reasons, financial embarrassment, spiritual adventurous excitement, etc., there are always some women willing to participate in the performance. As long as they do not violate their free will, they cannot be punished legally. At most they are just moral accusations, lamenting their misfortune, and angering them. Professor McKinnon also pointed out that AV works are the objectification of women, and it is the sin that “men consume women and meet the needs of men”. Professor Dworkin, the flexible old man, immediately retorted: “Women also consume men and meet the needs of women. Isn’t it a small meat star?” After watching the debate between the two professors, it will give people a feeling: They all seem to make sense. Disputes over speech are necessary for their existence. There is nothing wrong with the authors who did not agree with the phenomenon of homosexuality. He didn’t break the law or commit any crime, and it was almost enough to slap each other. Our country’s tolerance for homosexuality is not so high compared with other countries in legislation. But in real life, he won’t suffer more cruel blows. You know, Turing, the father of artificial intelligence, was chemically castrated by the government because of homosexuality. This happened in the last century, not far away. Discussion belongs to discussion, and law belongs to law. There are too many opinions and opinions in this world. As long as they don’t affect their normal life, proper tolerance will make them more comfortable. The court’s decision was no problem. Both the plaintiff Xixi and the textbook editors were not wrong. This is my opinion.


By zhiwo

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
7 months ago

Homosexuality is not a psychological barrier, just a non-mainstream sexual orientation; homosexuality itself is not a problem, it is not the original sin; it should be resisted and discriminated against should not be homosexuals, but those dangerous people who do dangerous things under the banner of homosexuality; To this world countless beautiful actors Leslie Cheung is a homosexual, I believe everyone is familiar with Leslie Cheung’s Farewell My Concubine, such a clean and beautiful person, should he be discriminated against because he is gay? What we should really discriminate should be all the evil in this world, and everything that is beautiful and clean should be respected!

7 months ago

The court’s decision was expected. The reason for this judgment is that there are not only technical factors in the plaintiff’s claims, but also the overall consideration of social values. However, the expression “homosexuality is a psychological barrier” in the textbook is obviously inappropriate. The textbook should disseminate knowledge that has been scientifically concluded or reached a consensus, that is, what seems to be the truth at present. If it is only an academic point of view, the appropriate way to express it should be: [Some academic views believe that homosexuality is a psychological barrier] It is appropriate to write some people’s views directly into the textbook to mislead readers into thinking that it is scientific truth?

7 months ago

In 2016, Xixi, a freshman in the freshman year, learned that in the textbook “Mental Health Education for College Students”, a publicly-selected course of Jinan University, homosexuality was classified as a sexual psychological disorder, and described it as “a disorder in sex or an inverted sexual object.” “. She believes that the above content stigmatizes homosexuality and puts forward the suggestion of “recalling wrong teaching materials and correcting wrong content”. After communicating with the editor and the publisher to no avail, she took the publisher and the two companies responsible for sales to court. After three postponements, the case will be heard in July 2020. The court of first instance held that the multiple sets of evidence provided by the plaintiff are not relevant to the case; the plaintiff’s claims and the relevant expressions in the books involved in the case are cognitive differences and do not belong to intellectual errors in the textual errors in book editing; in addition, the academic books involved Disagreements of opinions and cognition are not within the scope of the review responsibility of Jinan University Press, which has fulfilled its review obligations. Sixi filed an appeal. On February 22, 2021, Xixi received the second-instance judgment, and the Suqian Intermediate Court rejected the appeal and upheld the original judgment. The court of second instance held that intellectual errors in book editing and proofreading refer to improper textual expressions caused by lack of knowledge, vague memory or technical negligence, and content errors caused by this. The error proposed by the evidence provided by Xixi in the first instance does not fall within the scope of the intellectual error provisions, and does not fall within the scope of book editing. The court of first instance stated that the content involved academic views is correct and should be maintained.

7 months ago

Are you gay? I do not oppose, support, or discriminate.

But I firmly oppose the penetration of homosexuality into mainstream values. Don’t tell me that there is nothing. As long as humans are still mammals and humans cannot achieve asexual reproduction, I firmly oppose homosexuality infiltration into mainstream values.

I do not oppose, support, or discriminate against homosexuality, but I firmly oppose the penetration of homosexuality into mainstream values!

7 months ago

I personally agree with the court’s approval, and the academic viewpoint is different. Because starting from the facts, homosexual groups are both congenital and acquired. Acquired homosexuality must be caused by environmental feedback, which distorts an inborn heterosexuality into homosexuality. What is it that is not a psychological disorder? In the same way, twisting a congenital homosexuality into heterosexuality is also a psychological disorder. We can only say that the academic view of the textbook is rather one-sided, but cannot be said to be wrong. Friends who like zoology may have discovered that homosexuality is a widespread natural phenomenon among various female allogeneic animal groups. It’s just that it is difficult for homosexuals in nature to leave offspring, so this phenomenon is relatively rare in nature. However, the proportion of homosexuality in the human population is ridiculously high compared to the natural incidence. Therefore, there must be other reasons besides the genetic relay of homosexual offspring caused by social pressure on marriage. So when the psychological barriers of gender caused by the external environment are supported by realistic data, should academic views succumb to the political correctness of Yorkshire?

7 months ago

Others are gay, I support it, I do not oppose it, anyway, it does not hinder me; the homosexuality in the textbook? Is that for my child? Then I do not support it, and strongly oppose it. see it? This is the status quo. This is the status quo of social phenomena such as homosexuality and feminism. Internet public opinion was fierce, and as soon as reality emerged, he was immediately beaten back to its original form. You have the ability to make all those who support homosexuality and feminism write their opinions on their ID cards, so that everyone can see them. Do you see if they are willing? So, don’t be led by someone with a heart like a fool.

7 months ago

Homophobia is a psychological barrier and an intellectual error. Regardless of the law, it is quite an official position that directly declares that this country is not a country of homosexuals, and therefore does not guarantee the rights of homosexuals. Otherwise, if someone thinks that the Chinese people have worse intelligence, they will be allowed to exist in the public domain on the same grounds as academic viewpoints? Sexual minorities and mainstream groups have always been in a relationship. For heterosexuals, there is a cooling-off period for divorce, and there are always essays on spring evenings, and countless things are connected, and the true meaning of it is ready to express. A more tolerant society is beneficial to everyone, and it will also make mainstream groups more free. Don’t ask for whom the death knell is torn, otherwise when they come to you, there will be no one else to help you.

7 months ago

What is their proportion in the total population? Is homosexuality “infected” from foreign countries to China? The proportion of homosexuality in the total population is generally believed to be around 3-5% in the international academic circles, and some scholars say it may be higher than this ratio. . Based on this conservative calculation, there are at least 40 million homosexuals in China. Scientists also recognize that the proportion of homosexuality in the total population does not vary due to historical, cultural and other factors. Historical periods and cultural differences will only affect the degree of openness of homosexual people in different eras and different countries; homosexuality is not an exotic foreign product. The author has existed in ancient China, and there are many texts in ancient books to support it.

7 months ago

If the whole world is homosexual, wouldn’t mankind become extinct? Homosexuality will not and cannot cause the extinction of mankind. First, it is impossible for all humans to be homosexual; second, homosexuality has existed since ancient times, and human beings have not been extinct because of this; second, human sex has long been not for the purpose of reproduction, and same-sex couples can also be adopted or reproductive assistance Technology and become parents. Nowadays, same-sex couples in many countries can legally adopt children. Relevant studies compared the children raised by homosexual parents and heterosexual parents and found that there was no difference between the two groups of children in the four aspects of intelligence, psychological adjustment, social fitness, and popularity among peers. In addition, the sexual orientation of the parents does not mean that the child will have this sexual orientation in the future. The parents of many gay children are heterosexual is the best proof.

7 months ago

Is homosexuality a mental illness? Homosexuality is not a disease, let alone a psychopath. As early as 1974, the American Psychiatric Association deleted the term “homosexuality” from the diagnostic manual. In 1990, the World Health Organization (WHO) officially eliminated “homosexuality” from the list of mental disorders. In China, the third edition of the “Chinese Mental Disorder Classification and Diagnosis Criteria” published in 2001 also non-pathologicalized homosexuality. Therefore, any person or organization that claims that homosexuality is pathological and can treat or change homosexuality is completely against the laws of science.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x