Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

Didn't understand any of that.

Might be the fact that it's your own words being used against you that's causing that.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't remember expressing that I was quite happy when David Isaacs was Head of the EHRC or with Stonewall. Are you sure this is not yet another case of you just making stuff up and putting words into people's mouths?

You have only complained since someone you don't like has been in the post. Pretty hard to deny that a former head of Stonewall would be more to your liking than a Lib Dem.

Complaints about Faulkner were dismissed and found to be without merit, as you well know.

Anyway back to your claims about the EqA always taking sex to mean biological sex as every man and his dog knew, you are obviously wrong despite you repeating bollocks ad nauseum throughout the thread.

These lines of text are in the response from Faulkner to Badenoch (then the relevant minister) who was determined to try to change the law so that the definition of sex in the EqA would become 'biological sex'.

If you are correct (which you are not) that the EqA takes sex to mean biological sex, then it would not require a change to take such effect.

It's a change in the wording of the Act to clarify what it means because Stonewall have spent years muddying the waters of what male and female in the EA meant, just as you have tried to do on here. It's not a change in the Act per se but it requires a change in the Act to enshrine the clarification.

Again, you know all this but seek to obfuscate and confuse by pretending we all knew in 2010 that when the Equality Act says 'women' it meant men as well. It didn't. It doesn't.

Thanks to activists deliberately trying to undermine the EA it now needs officially clarifying.

 

[monkers]

You have only complained since someone you don't like has been in the post. Pretty hard to deny that a former head of Stonewall would be more to your liking than a Lib Dem.

Complaints about Faulkner were dismissed and found to be without merit, as you well know.



It's a change in the wording of the Act to clarify what it means because Stonewall have spent years muddying the waters of what male and female in the EA meant, just as you have tried to do on here. It's not a change in the Act per se but it requires a change in the Act to enshrine the clarification.

Again, you know all this but seek to obfuscate and confuse by pretending we all knew in 2010 that when the Equality Act says 'women' it meant men as well. It didn't. It doesn't.

Thanks to activists deliberately trying to undermine the EA it now needs officially clarifying.

You are just pretending that your bigotry is reality. It isn't. It's how I know you are just a bigot.

Faulkner told Badenoch that the EqA can not be simply 'clarified' so that sex and only be interpreted as 'biological sex'. It requires a change to the law that will require the consideration of parliament.

The 2004 came out because of a ECtHR directive. Essentially the 2004 Act sets out the stall. Those people with a GRC are legally the sex and gender they tell you they are. They have the legal protections of privacy. These are public sector duties. The sex and gender identity of others is just none of your business.

The law protects your belief that the nobody has a gender identity. It allows you to be philosophically critical in your thoughts - any body has the right to think what they like; but that is the limit to the entitlement. You are not entitled to question people about their sex or gender identity.

N tells me that although this has not to date been tested in the courts of England and Wales, it has been tested in Scotland where it was held that 'sex' in the EqA does not mean 'biological sex'. This is likely to also be influential in the courts of England and Wales in the future. Courts in England & Wales are required to observe convention rights. The convention right was cemented by a directive from ECtHR following the Christine Goodwin case.

Some day you are going to have to follow the facts instead of presented arguments formed from bigotry.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You are just pretending that your bigotry is reality. It isn't. It's how I know you are just a bigot.

Usual name calling.

Faulkner told Badenoch that the EqA can not be simply 'clarified' so that sex and only be interpreted as 'biological sex'. It requires a change to the law that will require the consideration of parliament.

To ensure it is clarified in law requires a change in wording, which is a change to the law. This is obvious. Laws are passed with meticulous wording so any change - even clarifications - inevitably mean a change to the law itself.

The 2004 came out because of a ECtHR directive. Essentially the 2004 Act sets out the stall. Those people with a GRC are legally the sex and gender they tell you they are. They have the legal protections of privacy. These are public sector duties. The sex and gender identity of others is just none of your business.

Still doesn't mean they have access to all other sex spaces and services though. Stop pretending it does.

The rest of your post is your usual fiction, blather, and name calling.

 

[classic33]

Usual name calling.

If it's true, is it really name calling!

 

[monkers]

Usual name calling.


To ensure it is clarified in law requires a change in wording, which is a change to the law. This is obvious. Laws are passed with meticulous wording so any change - even clarifications - inevitably mean a change to the law itself.




Still doesn't mean they have access to all other sex spaces and services though. Stop pretending it does.

The rest of your post is your usual fiction, blather, and name calling.

I never said that it did - I quite specifically as always said 'permissible exemptions'. However, for example, denial of access to public toilets of the appropriate gender is not a permissible exemption.

As I have explained before, blanket bans are never permissible exemptions. Exemptions carry the burden of a high bar.

Saying ''I consider all trans women to be men wearing lipstick'' (to paraphrase Falkner) might be considered a protected belief, but it does not lead to the argument and conclusion that therefore ''those people who I think may look to be trans must be excluded''.

When a person exhibits bigotry, why is it wrong to call them a bigot? It's the reality check that you need.

 

[monkers]

To ensure it is clarified in law requires a change in wording, which is a change to the law. This is obvious. Laws are passed with meticulous wording so any change - even clarifications - inevitably mean a change to the law itself.

N here.

Please do stop. Clearly you have little idea about this.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I never said that it did - I quite specifically as always said 'permissible exemptions'. However, for example, denial of access to public toilets of the appropriate gender is not a permissible exemption.

It very obviously would include toilets. You can keep denying it if you like.

As I have explained before, blanket bans are never permissible exemptions. Exemptions carry the burden of a high bar.

The bar is set at 'proportionate means to a legitimate end' for UK service providers. There has never been a blanket ban, on trans people or anyone else, and no one has asked for one. Men are legitimately excluded from certain women's single sex spaces though.

Saying ''I consider all trans women to be men wearing lipstick'' (to paraphrase Falkner) might be considered a protected belief, but it does not lead to the argument and conclusion that therefore ''those people who I think may look to be trans must be excluded''.

They are men, regardless of what they wear. Nobody has suggested exclusion on the basis of looks, only (in certain limited circumstances) exclusion on the basis of sex.

When a person exhibits bigotry, why is it wrong to call them a bigot? It's the reality check that you need.

It's not bigotry to believe women (and men) need certain services to be single sex.

I'm not replying to imaginary friends.

 

[monkers]

I imagine all your friends are fellow bigots.

 

[classic33]

monkers said:
Saying ''I consider all trans women to be men wearing lipstick'' (to paraphrase Falkner) might be considered a protected belief, but it does not lead to the argument and conclusion that therefore ''those people who I think may look to be trans must be excluded''.

They are men, regardless of what they wear. Nobody has suggested exclusion on the basis of looks, only (in certain limited circumstances) exclusion on the basis of sex.

You already have said that though. You even said you'd be prepared to check those trying to enter women only spaces, if you felt they didn't look like woman. Even willing to perform the checks yourself. Use a camera in a changing area where there would be young girls in various states of undress.

And yet you keep on with this blind faith(for want of a better way of wording it) that women, like yourself pose no risk to anyone.

A changing area or toilet is one area where any camera being carried should stay out of sight, and not be used. However you seem to feel that it'd be okay to use one, if the means matched your goal. Maybe it's time to take a look at what you're "fighting for", because it certainly isn't the dignity or safety of women and girls, when you repeatedly say you're willing to resort to such methods.

 

[monkers]

It very obviously would include toilets. You can keep denying it if you like.

N here

What you imagine is obvious is likely to be much less obvious to the courts who tend to want to apply the law.

Frankly, you seem to have no idea about the processes of law. You do seem to have a lurid imagination about trans people also.

It must be rather useful to your believe in your imaginary world that lawyers either don't exit or don't have aunts.

Freud used to believe that all women have penis envy. It would be interesting to hear what he would make of you! Edit: or of me for that matter!

 

[AuroraSaab]

You already have said that though. You even said you'd be prepared to check those trying to enter women only spaces, if you felt they didn't look like woman. Even willing to perform the checks yourself. Use a camera in a changing area where there would be young girls in various states of undress.

I have said none of those things. Again, provide the receipts. Should be easy to find with the search function.

And yet you keep on with this blind faith(for want of a better way of wording it) that women, like yourself pose no risk to anyone.

Statistically, men pose a far higher risk to women and children (of both sexes) than women do. A hundred years of crime data prove this.

A changing area or toilet is one area where any camera being carried should stay out of sight, and not be used. However you seem to feel that it'd be okay to use one, if the means matched your goal. Maybe it's time to take a look at what you're "fighting for", because it certainly isn't the dignity or safety of women and girls, when you repeatedly say you're willing to resort to such methods.

I have no idea what you are on about here.
I doubt anyone else does.

 

[classic33]

I have said none of those things. Again, provide the receipts. Should be easy to find with the search function.

Statistically, men pose a far higher risk to women and children (of both sexes) than women do. A hundred years of crime data prove this.

I have no idea what you are on about here.
I doubt anyone else does.

They're all things you've said you were willing to do. Even thinking you had an ally, now gone, willing to use a thermal imaging device to check.

You should have no trouble recalling what you said. You have been searching haven't you?

And still the names are awaited. Sarcastic replies don't count.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Freud used to believe that all women have penis envy. It would be interesting to hear what he would make of you! Edit: or of me for that matter!

I think you'd keep him busy for years, Monkers, as he had a lot to say about narcissism too.

 

[classic33]

View attachment 6719

I think you'd keep him busy for years, Monkers, as he had a lot to say about narcissism too.

Freud has also been proved wrong on that part.

He put ghosts in the same bracket.