Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

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

No, you need to bring the evidence that the common understanding of the definition of the word 'woman' in 2010 included men.

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?

Trans identified men share nothing in common with women that they couldn't share with other men. Thus they are a subset of men. The only difference between them and other men is how they feel about themselves.

It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.
Biology doesn't change because of anybodies feelings.

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.

I will continue to advocate for single sex spaces. You can continue to advocate for men in women and girls spaces, tell us men can be lesbians, support men in women's sports and jails, encourage puberty blockers for kids, and show us all the other red flags you like. That's how forums work.

 

[AuroraSaab]

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.

Again, this is completely false. I have never said this. It's the opposite of what I have said.

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.

Lol. Have you not realised that the forum automatically gives those titles? Posters have no control over them. Bit sexist of you there too tbh.

I love the Suffragettes, Classic, and the Suffragists, I honestly do. I don't feel bound by the words or actions of women that were born a 150 years ago however. How very odd of you to think that women should be.

When I read your posts it's like I'm transported to an episode of Black Mirror, where everything is back to front and upside down.

 

[monkers]

No, you need to bring the evidence that the common understanding of the definition of the word 'woman' in 2010 included men.

What you consider is the common understanding is irrelevant. What parliament intended is relevant.

In order to support your claim you must bring evidence that parliament intended the EqA for 'sex' to mean only biological sex.

The evidence is that they didn't, since parliament had previously already legislated that a person's sex is whatever is stated on their birth certificate.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nope.

 

[monkers]

I don't feel bound by the words or actions of women that were born a 150 years ago however. How very odd of you to think that women should be.

Fair enough, but what about the words or actions of one man born in 1911. Would you feel bound by those?

 

[monkers]

Nope.

Yup.

General​

(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

(2)Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).

(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.

 

[classic33]

Again, this is completely false. I have never said this. It's the opposite of what I have said.

Your own post disagrees with you. Again.
You were almost gloating at one part of the piece you posted.

Lol. Have you not realised that the forum automatically gives those titles? Posters have no control over them. Bit sexist of you there too tbh.

Incorrect
A male title being used by a female sexist?

I love the Suffragettes, Classic, and the Suffragists, I honestly do. I don't feel bound by the words or actions of women that were born a 150 years ago however. How very odd of you to think that women should be.

You've said otherwise.

When I read your posts it's like I'm transported to an episode of Black Mirror, where everything is back to front and upside down.

I could say the same about yours. Using the same patronising put down tone used by you.

 

[Bromptonaut]

No, you need to bring the evidence that the common understanding of the definition of the word 'woman' in 2010 included men.

I was going to say it's nuanced but I'm not sure that's the right word:

The 2010 Act defines, or at least assumes, sex as a binary concept. You're either male or female. Which of those two you are will depend on what it says on your birth certificate.

A transwoman with a GRC will have a birth certificate describing them as female.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Your own post disagrees with you. Again.
You were almost gloating at one part of the piece you posted.

Nope. I've never suggested women should go in men's prisons.

Incorrect

Look at everybody else's forum profile. Ask them if they change those titles or the forum does it on it's own. I'll hum the Twilight Zone music while I wait.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Nope. I've never suggested women should go in men's prisons.

Look at everybody else's forum profile. Ask them if they change those titles or the forum does it on it's own. I'll hum the Twilight Zone music while I wait.

As I understand it the forum software will allocate a status, presumably based on post count.

You can override that in Control Panel if you prefer some other thing. I choose to be defined by my clothing.

 

[classic33]

Nope. I've never suggested women should go in men's prisons.

Slight twist on what was actually said.

Look at everybody else's forum profile. Ask them if they change those titles or the forum does it on it's own. I'll hum the Twilight Zone music while I wait.

You're sure on that?

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVSRm80WzZk

 

[AuroraSaab]

I was going to say it's nuanced but I'm not sure that's the right word:

The 2010 Act defines, or at least assumes, sex as a binary concept. You're either male or female. Which of those two you are will depend on what it says on your birth certificate.

A transwoman with a GRC will have a birth certificate describing them as female.

In the Equality Act the protected characteristic of 'sex' is defined as a reference to a man or a woman, where man means 'a male of any age' and woman means 'a female of any age'.
It's quite a jump to suggest that these terms are not the common understanding and common usage of man and woman, ie that they are distinct and separate groups and that 'woman' is not a mixed-sex category.

It says nothing about the definition of sex equalling 'whatever your birth certificate says'.

Meanwhile, Classic thinks if you don't change the automated forum title it's some sort of statement.

 

[classic33]

In the Equality Act the protected characteristic of 'sex' is defined as a reference to a man or a woman, where man means 'a male of any age' and woman means 'a female of any age'.
It's quite a jump to suggest that these terms are not the common understanding and common usage of man and woman, ie that they are distinct and separate groups and that 'woman' is not a mixed-sex category.

It says nothing about the definition of sex equalling 'whatever your birth certificate says'.

Meanwhile, Classic thinks if you don't change the automated forum title it's some sort of statement.

What was printed on your birth certificate?
And then the jump from there to the law isn't as big as you claim.

If you're not wanting to use a legal document, what are you willing to use?

Given your stance, I'd say it was saying something.

 

[monkers]

It says nothing about the definition of sex equalling 'whatever your birth certificate says'.

Err ... it's called, 'The Equality Act' and includes the protected characteristic of sex.

I copy 'n' pasted Section 9 of the GRA. Notice the chronology of this, then the EqA.

The GRA makes a person whatever sex is stated on their birth certificate. The correct interpretation of 'sex' is that it is takes on the precedent of what went before unless or until it says otherwise.

The government could ask parliament to redefine 'sex'. If and when it does, then that will be the case, but then as that would be a breach of convention rights, any appeal to the ECtHR would likely to be successful.

What was printed on your birth certificate?
And then the jump from there to the law isn't as big as you claim.

If you're not wanting to use a legal document, what are you willing to use?

Given your stance, I'd say it was saying something.

Aurora's stance of 'common understanding' is based on her acceptance of the opinion of one man born in 1911, and stated in 1971. He was influential in his day, but his opinion was formally put in the bin a generation ago in 2002.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The government could ask parliament to redefine 'sex'. If and when it does, then that will be the case, but then as that would be a breach of convention rights, any appeal to the ECtHR would likely to be successful.

It would be a clarification not a redefinition. Necessary only because people like you have attempted to redefine the words male and female to pretend they don't refer to distinct groups.