Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I said an expectation that no men will be present. You can no longer go to any women only space or service and expect it to be free of men because legally they have access.

N here.

The 'expectation' is your own formed on the basis of prejudice against a minority group. I can express that view freely as human person with accompanying rights, as a trans person with accompanying rights, and as a lawyer with accompanying rights.

You 'expectation' does not match with international laws which exist to protect others from the various harms that are manifested from personal prejudices.

International law prohibits the practices that you advocate at state level, deeming them to be abuses. In effect the various campaigns against the rights of trans people are contrary to their internationally agreed human rights.

The Australia case is interesting. I haven't read the judgement as yet, accordingly I am unable to speak to it. I'll restrict myself to saying that it will appear that the judge in this case may well already be familiar with the forthcoming GR40 which is expected to be adopted as soon as October this year, which will further cement the rights of certain groups including trans people into law, reducing the effect of the familiar nebulous confected arguments.

 

[AndyRM]

"feelz". FFS.

Aye, boot them out of everything, including a pre season cup tournament which nobody (including me) has ever heard of because it's not fair even though everyone competing against them would know they're an LGBTQIA+ team.

To use some sort of equivalence, that'd be like football teams in Scotland saying, "Well, we're a junior/semi professional team and didn't know we'd be coming up against a fully professional side".

Farcical really.

Bring on the Enhanced Games. It's the way forward.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

reducing the effect of the familiar nebulous confected arguments.

Twaddle.

 

[monkers]

Twaddle.

N again.

I'm sure the world is ready for your wisdom, superior as you may think it is to the UN.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The 'expectation' is your own formed on the basis of prejudice against a minority group.

It's an expectation and right (to be able to exclude in limited situations) that is available on all sorts of grounds like sex, age, race.
It's not based on prejudice. That right to exclude on the grounds of sex is no longer available to Australian women.

International law prohibits the practices that you advocate at state level, deeming them to be abuses. In effect the various campaigns against the rights of trans people are contrary to their internationally agreed human rights.

It's not a right of men to have access to women's single sex spaces anymore than it is a right of straight people to have access to gay people's spaces or certain age groups to have access to facilities meant for other age groups.

It's not abuse to exclude men from women's prisons, rape crisis sessions, domestic violence refuges, or sports. It is abusive of you to demand they be given access.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Twaddle.

You've been put straight by the imaginary friend, Bob. Lol.

 

[monkers]

You've been put straight by the imaginary friend, Bob. Lol.

N again

The above stated by a person with some history of expressing 'imaginary' views of what the law (that is to say parliament) actually intends.

I don't 'imagine' that either of you is familiar with GR40. There is an 'expectation' that it will pass into law come October this year. The purpose of GR40 is to make human rights protections for some minority and intersectional groups more robust.

I dare say the likes of Tommy Robinson, Lawrence Fox, and Sall Grover might like to say that the law is 'twaddle'; however these cases I also dare say serve to demonstrate their 'expectation' that the right to free expression includes the right to abuse have not been met.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

You've been put straight by the imaginary friend, Bob. Lol.

Invoking the UN as authority.

 

[AuroraSaab]

N again

Please spare me you channelling your imaginary friend. Or if you're going to insist on pretending, at least make the effort not to constantly make the same punctuation errors. Or maybe you could work on your alter ego sounding a bit different rather than exactly the same. Bit of Cockney rhyming slang or something. We could all enjoy that.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

And now let's throw in Tommy Robinson. Let's get this straight 'N', twaddle was referring to your pompous language not to the law.

 

[monkers]

It's not abuse to exclude men from women's prisons, rape crisis sessions, domestic violence refuges, or sports. It is abusive of you to demand they be given access.

N again

That is very inventive of you; I had not said that it was.

It's not a right of men to have access to women's single sex spaces anymore than it is a right of straight people to have access to gay people's spaces or certain age groups to have access to facilities meant for other age groups.

This is interesting. You have created the argument that women should not have legal access to Giggle for Girls.

You familiar and ongoing argument is the term 'woman' can only be used in relation to female as precision in language is so essential. On the other hand, you will seem to have no difficulty with women describing themselves as 'girls'.

 

[monkers]

And now let's throw in Tommy Robinson. Let's get this straight 'N', twaddle was referring to your pompous language not to the law.

N again.

You think you made that point powerfully and cogently? You lead me to doubt that you are capable of a cogent argument. Prove me wrong.

 

[AuroraSaab]

"feelz". FFS.

It is their feelings though, isn't it? The men and non binary men could play in the Men's league. They choose to play in the Women's, putting their own feelings above those of the women who have to play against them.

Aye, boot them out of everything, including a pre season cup tournament which nobody (including me) has ever heard of because it's not fair even though everyone competing against them would know they're an LGBTQIA+ team.

They know now and some teams have withdrawn ftom playing against a Women's team with males. So women must lose out because one team prioritises men.

To use some sort of equivalence, that'd be like football teams in Scotland saying, "Well, we're a junior/semi professional team and didn't know we'd be coming up against a fully professional side".

And that would be wrong surely, if you thought you'd signed up for a Junior league?

A closer analogy would be taking your boy to an Under 11's tournament to find one Under 11's team had 5 15 year olds on it.

 

[monkers]

Please spare me you channelling your imaginary friend.

I am a niece of monkers and an actual person. I know that you tend to think that gender identity is not real. However I assure you that trans people remain human despite whatever views you hold.

 

[monkers]

Or maybe you could work on your alter ego sounding a bit different rather than exactly the same. Bit of Cockney rhyming slang or something. We could all enjoy that.

Increasingly I understand the reasons why monkers considers you an idiot.