Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

all of 'em' every single one

This is also pretty much the exact phrase used by Keen about the number of women she'll annihilate if they don't agree with her.

That they can't understand that these behaviours are fascist-like is astonishing. No scope for discussion or pragmatism with them.

Social contract? No. There's something of a convention. A contract requires law. Trans women have a contract with the state concerning identity.

As keeps saying 'that's why I exclude them'. However she can't, at least not without acting unlawfully. If one person takes it upon them self to be the supreme leader, what shall we be required to call her?


View: https://youtu.be/GcMd1F1acSo

 

[AuroraSaab]

This is also pretty much the exact phrase used by Keen about the number of women she'll annihilate of they don't agree with her.

'All of 'em' is not exactly a unique turn of phrase. I'm surprised you haven't come across it before.

That they can't understand that these behaviours are fascist-like is astonishing. No scope for discussion or pragmatism with them.

This is desperate stuff now. It's not fascist to think that a disabled person or elderly person should have the right to a same sex carer. Not someone who identifies as that sex.

Nor is it fascist to think a rape victim should have the right to a same sex counsellor. Not someone who identifies as that sex.

Social contract? No. There's something of a convention. A contract requires law. Trans women have a contract with the state concerning identity.

As keeps saying 'that's why I exclude them'. However she can't, at least not without acting unlawfully. If one person takes it upon them self to be the supreme leader, what shall we be required to call her?


View: https://youtu.be/GcMd1F1acSo

People with a GRC can still be excluded. That has been clarified several times:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

Throughout this thread, and others on the old CC politics forum, you have continually misrepresented the law and the Equality Act. You have presented 'Stonewall law' - the law as you wish it to be, not as it actually is.

You have also continually suggested that posters are being 'unlawful' by posting their views and now, God forbid, committing what you imagine to be a hate crime by transgressing your imaginary laws of the rather niche discipline of trans grammar.

These are tactics to try and shut down the debate. It simply won't wash.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Why can't transwomen share your facilities, guys? Wouldn't you treat them the same as everybody else who uses them? Emily Bridges didn't seem to have any problem being accepted by their teammates after coming out as transgender. Wouldn't you guys welcome transwomen in your sports teams? In your changing rooms? As a potential partner?

Perhaps the way forward is for you guys to make your facilities and services unisex. That sounds like pragmatism.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

1) If it wasn't the point, as you now claim, why introduce the "argument" in the first place? Provide two of those peer reviewed papers.

i explained, two times already, i'm not going to continuously repeat myself.

2) Again you made the claim, not me. Science disagrees with you. You claim it's "nit picking" when it's pointed out you're wrong, I don't. You don't want correcting, don't introduce a false argument.

ok is stand corrected water isn't wat, on a scientfic basis, now happy?

3) There's a Travistock Clinic listed near me. With that in mind, I think you should be a bit more careful with your spelling, and cease assuming, which you've claimed is wrong, that there can be no other places with similar names. It doesn't matter if there's one or as you said "if there would be 28 institutes with almost the same name". It's the damage that can be done by using a similar name, then dismissing it as though it didn't matter.

I didn't say that there where not other places with the same name, i just said that, in this very specific circumstances confusing with an other would be very unlikely.

So far as I can tell nobody was convicted. There was a civil case, which I think has yet to be decided, over the provision of medication to young people presenting as trans.

That isn't true, altough it's not it's off course the organisation that gets an conviction or not, thy have already been convicted in an employment trial: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58453250 uh tribunal, correction. and this article speak of a high court ruling, it might not litterly be called a conviction if it's about a company but the effect is the same: https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/11/2...irming-treatment-for-children-puberty-blocker

The worrying TLDR is that they where ok to apparently rush things to get a certain result, in my view healthcare should be about whatever is best for the patient. especially when it can or will have life changing long term results.

Yes, the last thing we need in this thread is lived experience.

maybe read the parts you left out? Agree with me or not, taken bits out of it changes the whole point in this case.

 

[monkers]

'All of 'em' is not exactly a unique turn of phrase. I'm surprised you haven't come across it before.



This is desperate stuff now. It's not fascist to think that a disabled person or elderly person should have the right to a same sex carer. Not someone who identifies as that sex.

Nor is it fascist to think a rape victim should have the right to a same sex counsellor. Not someone who identifies as that sex.




People with a GRC can still be excluded. That has been clarified several times:

View attachment 3048

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

Throughout this thread, and others on the old CC politics forum, you have continually misrepresented the law and the Equality Act. You have presented 'Stonewall law' - the law as you wish it to be, not as it actually is.

You have also continually suggested that posters are being 'unlawful' by posting their views and now, God forbid, committing what you imagine to be a hate crime by transgressing your imaginary laws of the rather niche discipline of trans grammar.

These are tactics to try and shut down the debate. It simply won't wash.

Indeed it is desperate stuff when you deny the truth. You are a woman who seeks to silence women with a different set of values or opinions. You are not elected to be in charge of anything as far as I know, but it is written here by you that 'I exclude'. What will happen to me if I disagree? Annihilation?

You are also saying that I don't recognise the provisions for the exceptions in the Equality Act. Whereas, no where have I said, that often I have pointed to the existence of the exceptions, and even used case law to show to demonstrate the legal interpretation. Whereas your view is always absolute, not pragmatism, not realism. The exceptions do not favour absolute exclusion which is your preferred method of interpretation. As a question of law, you are wrong, because you've allowed yourself to ensconced in your absolutism.

I reference the 2004 Act and the 2010 Act. How are these laws arbitrary?

You've exposed yourself as something of a fraud, but one with a rich cache of propaganda material that you've dedicated time to put together. The trouble for you that neither these materials, your narrative, or your interpretation of law stand scrutiny.

Addendum. While maintaining the biological exceptionalism of the left, and denying that this is a battle between those women who are trans exclusionary with those who are trans inclusionary, you manage to parrot the exact form of words of the gender critical voice of the American Christian right; while at the same time claiming there is no collusion. Interesting stuff.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There you go again, saying that my views don't withstand the scrutiny of the law. GRC or not, transwomen can be excluded in the UK. You keep saying they can't.

It's not propaganda material, it's science and common sense. The material reality of biology isn't propaganda yet you bang on about sex being a spectrum, intersex people, and linking to stuff saying transwomen having no advantage in sport. When it's questioned you say you weren't providing evidence or agreeing, the links were just talking points. The fact is the evidence isn't there so you have to resort to obfuscation, veiled accusations that people's opinions are unlawful, and personal attacks. Cry 'fascist' all you like, it simply won't wash anymore.

This isn't the old forum. Trying to drag the discourse down to emotive histrionics and calling people fascist won't get the thread closed.

 

[monkers]

There you go again, saying that my views don't withstand the scrutiny of the law. GRC or not, transwomen can be excluded in the UK. You keep saying they can't.

It's not propaganda material, it's science and common sense. The material reality of biology isn't propaganda yet you bang on about sex being a spectrum, intersex people, and linking to stuff saying transwomen having no advantage in sport. When it's questioned you say you weren't providing evidence or agreeing, the links were just talking points. The fact is the evidence isn't there so you have to resort to obfuscation, veiled accusations that people's opinions are unlawful, and personal attacks. Cry 'fascist' all you like, it simply won't wash anymore.

This isn't the old forum. Trying to drag the discourse down to emotive histrionics and calling people fascist won't get the thread closed.

Kinell! I haven't said there aren't any exceptions, I challenge you to quote me saying so. You won't find it; 'it's all in your head'.

What I'm telling you is that there is no such blanket ban on anything. You like to falsely and wrongly claim it is, and more worryingly that you have the personal right to do so. You speak nonsense.

The 2004 Act gave trans women the lawful right to use female toilet facilities. Indeed it said 'for all purposes'. In 2010 Act there was some row back with the 'exceptional circumstances' but it does not change the provision of the act that trans women have the legal status of women. The word 'exceptional' in the phrase 'exceptional circumstances' can not mean blanket ban because AS says so. Yes there can be exceptional circumstances; it does not mean that trans women are excluded from using female toilets.

On the one hand you say the law provides for this exclusion; at other times you say there are grounds to argue that it should be so. This points to you actually knowing that there is no exclusion, but you are pretending that it already is so.

I'm came here saying I will not argue with absolutists, because I know they will twist, and turn and lie. You've provided that proof; yet again.

I've reached my boredom threshold with you. Either provide the evidence where I say there are no exceptions in law, or else don't bother replying.

Addendum. I've just carried out a forum search to confirm that I had not said 'sex is a spectrum'. I hadn't; this is just you making stuff up to attack your 'opponents'. Neither was anyone called a 'fascist'.

 

[classic33]

i explained, two times already, i'm not going to continuously repeat myself.[/B]
You've called it nit picking, not answered the point raised. Answer still awaited.
ok is stand corrected water isn't wat, on a scientfic basis, now happy?
If you were wrong why introduce it, knowing it to be wrong?

I didn't say that there where not other places with the same name, i just said that, in this very specific circumstances confusing with an other would be very unlikely.
It's not the same name though, which is part of a larger NHS Teaching Trust. It's a similar named clinic, going under the name you used.
Which if you use German or Dutch remains the same spelling as the English spelling. At least according to three online translators, Google being one of them.

That isn't true, altough it's not it's off course the organisation that gets an conviction or not, thy have already been convicted in an employment trial: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58453250 uh tribunal, correction. and this article speak of a high court ruling, it might not litterly be called a conviction if it's about a company but the effect is the same: https://www.deseret.com/2022/8/11/2...irming-treatment-for-children-puberty-blocker

The worrying TLDR is that they where ok to apparently rush things to get a certain result, in my view healthcare should be about whatever is best for the patient. especially when it can or will have life changing long term results.


maybe read the parts you left out? Agree with me or not, taken bits out of it changes the whole point in this case.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Intersex conditions are not the norm, but they do serve to show that sex is not immutable. In some, but not all intersex conditions, genital ambiguity is such that it shows that sex is not binary.

We really have covered all the bases now. Some of them several times over. I should think everybody is tired of you and I discussing the minutiae of the Equality Act for a start. It's covered everything from self-ID to sports, from floppy dicks to crying fascist. Until there are anymore developments it's probably time to put this thread to bed for a while.

If anybody can even summon the energy at this point, people can read the arguments given and make their own decisions.

 

[classic33]

There you go again, saying that my views don't withstand the scrutiny of the law. GRC or not, transwomen can be excluded in the UK. You keep saying they can't.

It's not propaganda material, it's science and common sense. The material reality of biology isn't propaganda yet you bang on about sex being a spectrum, intersex people, and linking to stuff saying transwomen having no advantage in sport. When it's questioned you say you weren't providing evidence or agreeing, the links were just talking points. The fact is the evidence isn't there so you have to resort to obfuscation, veiled accusations that people's opinions are unlawful, and personal attacks. Cry 'fascist' all you like, it simply won't wash anymore.

This isn't the old forum. Trying to drag the discourse down to emotive histrionics and calling people fascist won't get the thread closed.

Under what circumstances, where and who's going to be doing the checking.
Dignity and privacy maintained at all times, for all included.

Provide the legal proof to back your claims up. You're going down the road you've gone down too many times already, here and in the old N&CA.

You asked me have I seen what he(Barbie Kardashian) looks like, then I replied and your response was you couldn't care what she* looks like. You were asked where you got the figures for trans prisoners in the Irish prison system, your response was a picture of a weightlifter and later posted an outdated piece giving UK figures.

*You actually used he, I'm recognising that is no longer the case and use she. It's also what the court order says on reporting the case, or any aspect of it.

 

[classic33]

We really have covered all the bases now. Some of them several times over. I should think everybody is tired of you and I discussing the minutiae of the Equality Act for a start. It's covered everything from self-ID to sports, from floppy dicks to crying fascist. Until there are anymore developments it's probably time to put this thread to bed for a while.

If anybody can even summon the energy at this point, people can read the arguments given and make their own decisions.

Why does the law make you feel uneasy?

You may not agree with the law, but at least respect it. You may find yourself on the end where you need someone else to respect the law, even if they disagree with it.

 

[monkers]

We really have covered all the bases now. Some of them several times over. I should think everybody is tired of you and I discussing the minutiae of the Equality Act for a start. It's covered everything from self-ID to sports, from floppy dicks to crying fascist. Until there are anymore developments it's probably time to put this thread to bed for a while.

If anybody can even summon the energy at this point, people can read the arguments given and make their own decisions.

You've made specific reference to me saying things that I haven't.

I asked you to find where I had said so.

I guess this post admits that you can't and by implication makes my point; you've been making stuff up. And again I never cried 'fascist'; your lies continue. Neither have I discussed sport - that's another lie.

You've tried to 'win the argument' by every means possible. You haven't succeeded.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I literally just posted a quote from you where you say sex isn't immutable and intersex people prove sex isn't binary.

You've repeatedly referenced 'fascist' in response to KJK and general gender critical views over the last few days.

You posted a link to a Canadian report saying transwomen have no advantage in female sports.

I can only think you imagine other members are either blind or stupid. As for winning the argument, well people can read all the posts and decide for themselves where they stand, can't they?

 

[theclaud]

people can read all the posts

I can only admire the optimism.

 

[Unkraut]

You are confusing objective truth with subjective opinion.

This is precisely what I am trying to avoid!

It's trans women, not 'transwomen', either this is a grammatical error, which it shouldn't be by this far into the thread, or you are pursuing an agenda not permitted by law.

Is it really necessary to have spelling conventions enshrined in law? Doesn't this reveal the untenable foundation of transgenderism, also having to make using the 'wrong' pronouns illegal. I'm somewhat libertarian in what adults should be free to do, but a red warning light goes on with the background control-freakery on this issue.

Shouldn't that be "self-identify as Christian"?

That happens more often than you might think!

Self identifying according to what you subjectively feel or perceive in your head does not change the objective reality around you.

As a trans humanist I find sharing any space with cis or trans Christians scary.

I don't think it is the Christians themselves you ought to be scared of.

I've been physically attacked three times in women's toilets.

I would hope no-one here would not be sorry to hear you have had to suffer violence like this.

I think the presence of a few men in the general area would help deter attacks on women, because essentially the majority of men are decent and would put an end to it.

Maybe, just maybe, smashing the patriarchy was not such as good idea if it enabled men to escape a sense of responsibility towards women who are the weaker sex. I think egalitarianism has something to answer for in this regard. Treating as equal what isn't equal. Men treating women as though they were men - fine in some circumstances but not in others.