Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Feel free to use your sock puppet whenever you like. The arguments stand on their own merit and despite what you present on here the Equality Act exemptions continue to be used appropriately on a daily basis.

You tried: you lost.

Neither N or I has said that there are no permissible exemptions under the EqA. Again you are just making stuff up.

However you have pretended that every man and his dog has always known that 'sex' has always meant 'biological sex' in the EqA. It is not the case that this is what parliament intended at the time of enactment.

You have complained that bits of paper have been allowed to trump reality. The effect of this is an admittance that following the Goodwin case, the state became required to legislate for the convention rights of trans people. Your complaints lie with the human rights conventions which can not be adjusted by parliament rather than primary legislation.

Parliament is supreme (or sovereign if you prefer). It can therefore legislate ignoring convention rights, however it tends to do so only rarely. The Human Rights Act enacted by parliament sets out its guarantee of convention rights.

The last government's suite of bills concerning so-called illegal immigration and the Rwanda plan proved controversial because those acts were contrary to convention rights, with the relevant minister even admitting that was so.

The government went as far as threaten to repeal the human rights act and withdraw from the ECtHR in order to get their way. It had even previously been a Conservative manifesto pledge a number of times. Imagine that at the time, all women's rights down the toilet, while the known misogynist and bully Dominic Raab writing his own version of human rights into a Bill.

Check out the UK Human Rights Act, it even uses the Goodwin case as the example explainer of how convention rights are applied.

You can try your usual escape tactics of saying the discussion is too tedious for you, that a particular poster is a sock puppet, or that I'm to impolite for you, or pretending that my lack of immaculate grammar offends you so much, but you must know by now that people have noticed your failure to win the argument by reasonable means.

 

[AuroraSaab]

However you have pretended that every man and his dog has always known that 'sex' has always meant 'biological sex' in the EqA. It is not the case that this is what parliament intended at the time of enactment.

This is simply your opinion. As usual you present it as fact that parliament and the whole country knew the Equality Act meant to include men when it said 'women'.

You can try your usual escape tactics of saying the discussion is too tedious for you, that a particular poster is a sock puppet, or that I'm to impolite for you, or pretending that my lack of immaculate grammar offends you so much, but you must know by now that people have noticed your failure to win the argument by reasonable means.

Speaking on behalf of the entire forum again I see. I don't mind bad spelling or grammar, but I'll point it out in arrogant posters who spend their time calling other forum members thick f*ckwits.

I do find going over the same stuff a bit tedious but if you keep resurrecting the thread with disinformation I suppose it will continue.

I think your repeated public unravellings on here undermine your claim to reasonableness. It's a facade you can only keep up for so long and then it's back to the sweary histrionics. It must be exhausting being you.

 

[monkers]

This is simply your opinion. As usual you present it as fact that parliament and the whole country knew the Equality Act meant to include men when it said 'women'.

N has explained this to you. You have cloth ear syndrome. You have presented no evidence that ''the whole country knew''.

Meanwhile N directed you to the UK Human Rights Act which introduces itself (N provided you with the quote) as the UK law that guarantees our convention rights. N also pointed you to the ruling of the ECtHR which demonstrates that the UK was required to introduce their ruling into domestic law following the Christine Goodwin case. You just had to read.

 

[monkers]

Speaking on behalf of the entire forum again

I said ''people'' not 'all people'. The allegation is a bit rich following your assertions about 'every man and his dog' and your tendency to speak for all women, whereas surveys seem to suggest that it is not a majority of women agreeing with you, and the fact that nobody appointed you to speak for them.

And other people have noticed your m.o and commented on it - not just me!

 

[monkers]

I don't mind bad spelling or grammar, but I'll point it out in arrogant posters who spend their time calling other forum members thick f*ckwits.

A forum search of ''thick f*ckwits'' on the thread reveal you to be the only one to have said it. Making stuff up again Aurora.

 

[monkers]

I do find going over the same stuff a bit tedious but if you keep resurrecting the thread with disinformation I suppose it will continue.

Another false claim. My comments about the law are checked and primary sources of reference given.

So match me, where is the evidence that parliament intended 'sex' to mean 'biological sex' at the time of enactment? Where is the evidence that every man and his dog understood it to mean that?

 

[monkers]

It must be exhausting being you.

Oh it is. It's very exhausting debunking your gish gallop, false claims, all manner of deceits, and 1046 pages of your non-stop whining and pleading to victimhood. If only you'd think of others.

 

[classic33]

Speaking on behalf of the entire forum again I see. I don't mind bad spelling or grammar, but I'll point it out in arrogant posters who spend their time calling other forum members thick f*ckwits.

I do find going over the same stuff a bit tedious but if you keep resurrecting the thread with disinformation I suppose it will continue.

I think your repeated public unravellings on here undermine your claim to reasonableness. It's a facade you can only keep up for so long and then it's back to the sweary histrionics. It must be exhausting being you.

That's your speciality though, speaking on behalf of all women. Anyone that doesn't share your point of view, and your aims, is portrayed as them proactively against you.
Me, I'm all for live and let live. Let others live their lives, without demonising them.
But people preaching to me, telling me this way(my way) is the correct way of doing things, gets me putting as much distance between their view and my own. They start chucking false accusations at me, those accusations will be countered by me


I'm covered on disability under the Equalities Act, previously covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. The fact the law now says I'm protected from people who don't like disabled people near them, it doesn't stop it happening on an almost daily basis. This isn't supposed to be allowed under the Equalities Act, but doesn't stop others demanding I not be allowed to use the same facilities as them. Down to the point of being escorted off public transport. Purely and simply because I'm different, and they don't like people who are too different to them.

Your rants, because that's all they are now, are increasingly like those of two political parties views on people who are a different colour or speak in another language. You remind me of a neighbour who's afraid that they might catch my disability from me. Demanding, vocally at times on a crowded street, that I shouldn't be allowed near them. Passing on their fear and hate to their kids.

And before you say anything, up until the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act coming into force, it wasn't illegal to do what my neighbour does now. That's how good the law is.
I've fought for equal rights, the right not to be treated as a third inferior class of person, never greater rights. You are happy to see another third class of people. One you want hiding away from you. Question is why?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Where's the evidence they meant to include men when talking about women in 2010?

We all know the standard interpretation of 'woman' is biological - it certainly was in 2010 when the Equality Act was written. It's you who's making the assertion that you know for certain that the definition of women they intended 15 years ago was 'Yeah we don't just mean women women ... we mean the male ones as well'.

Surely they would have said that if that's what they meant. But they didn't because they obviously didn't mean that, and indeed doing so would render the protected characteristic of Woman meaningless and unecessary.

5 breathless posts in succession. Oh dear.

 

[matticus]

Fabulous review of Eddie's one person show in the Standard, Matticus.

https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/...t-one-woman-show-theatre-review-b1160734.html

"The later scenes .... are so embarrassing I almost cringed up my own fundament".

View attachment 6735

He's a decent actor in the right part but he's not a Shakespearean actor.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Me, I'm all for live and let live. Let others live their lives, without demonising them. One you want hiding away from you. Question is why?

Except women in prison, right? They can live and let live with male offenders according to you.

The question is why you think women aren't allowed their own spaces and services. Disabled people are. Trans people are. I'm sorry you've had a hard time in life but it quite honestly sounds like you think all women have to suffer to accommodate a small subset of men just because you feel a bit sorry for them.

 

[monkers]

Where's the evidence they meant to include men when talking about women in 2010?

We all know the standard interpretation of 'woman' is biological - it certainly was in 2010 when the Equality Act was written. It's you who's making the assertion that you know for certain that the definition of women they intended 15 years ago was 'Yeah we don't just mean women women ... we mean the male ones as well'.

Surely they would have said that if that's what they meant. But they didn't because they obviously didn't mean that, and indeed doing so would render the protected characteristic of Woman meaningless and unecessary.

5 breathless posts in succession. Oh dear.

N provided you with some of the relevant legal texts. Assemble events into chronological order and it makes perfect sense.

You claim that parliament intended 'sex' to mean only 'biological sex' in the EqA. If your are correct, then just bring the evidence.

The evidence has already been presented that you are wrong time and again. Yet here you are whining again and pleading that from pretended victim hood that you must be right. This is evidence of nothing other than you being a serial moaner.

 

[classic33]

Except women in prison, right? They can live and let live with male offenders according to you.

The question is why you think women aren't allowed their own spaces and services. Disabled people are. Trans people are. I'm sorry you've had a hard time in life but it quite honestly sounds like you think all women have to suffer to accommodate a small subset of men just because you feel a bit sorry for them.

You constantly say you want to move on from toilets, from prisons, or some other matter, yet you keep on falling back on them to support your view. As and when it suits you.
Again I'll ask for names, and places. And I'll give you some advice on travelling to another country who's laws you do not like.

You're wide of the mark as is usual, with your accusations. Turn that "small subset of men" into a small subset of women, who you want to be treated as third class to suit yourself.
Disabled spaces were created to keep disabled people apart from "normal people". I've fought for inclusion on that front, not exclusion. You can see people who you know have no disabilities using disabled facilities. And these facilities are often provided on the understanding that "normal people" have access to them. I don't belong to a "special subset" of person, I'm just not the same as everyone else. Why is that so hard to understand or come to terms with.

You were the only one on here who was happy to see women being moved onto the male estate, in prison. Even counting it as a victory when more women were moved over as well. There goes your claim on the prison front, again.

 

[monkers]

We all know the standard interpretation of 'woman' is biological - it certainly was in 2010 when the Equality Act was written. It's you who's making the assertion that you know for certain that the definition of women they intended 15 years ago was 'Yeah we don't just mean women women ... we mean the male ones as well'.

Read in chronological order; the convention rights, the UK Human Rights Act, the Christine Goodwin Case, the Gender Recognition Act, and then the Equality Act.

Trans women are women, or in your terms a subset of women. You don't like the fact. So farking what? Why do we have to stomach 1046 pages of your ongoing blathering, lies and bigotry?

I could give you notice that I've just had enough of you and leave the thread; however there are innocent people who need protection from people like you.

 

[classic33]

@AuroraSaab, a quick and very simple question.

If you're so against women saying they're men and men saying they're women, Why have you chosen a male title? Squire is a male title.

https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/the-very-queer-history-of-the-suffrage-movement.htm
From reading the above it appears that you're going against the aims of the suffragists movement, using a small subset of that movement to "further your cause".

And if you feel like questioning where I got my first correction on the suffragists movement, it was my history teacher at school. She made a clear distinction between the popular image of the suffragists and suffragette movement.