Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, anybody can wear what they like. To say that what you wear shows that you are a 'man' or that you are a 'woman' is regressive.

To say that you can dress 'androgynously,' as you do, that in itself shows you are subscribing to the idea that there are codes of dress for different sexes, and to wear things that are not clearly coded is somehow saying you are 'agender'.

Every woman going on a fell walk would be 'agender' by that metric, rather than a woman wearing comfy clothing.

 

[monkers]

Yes, anybody can wear what they like. To say that what you wear shows that you are a 'man' or that you are a 'woman' is regressive.

To say that you can dress 'androgynously,' as you do, that in itself shows you are subscribing to the idea that there are codes of dress for different sexes, and to wear things that are not clearly coded is somehow saying you are 'agender'.

Every woman going on a fell walk would be 'agender' by that metric, rather than a woman wearing comfy clothing.

No silly. People can wear what they like; but we tend to choose clothes that are appropriate to the situation. Even hiking boots are 'gendered' in shops.

 

[AuroraSaab]

They're sexed because blokes have bigger feet lol. They're not gendered, other than manufacturers imagine girls like flowers and pink etc. This is regressive. What would an agender pair of walking boots even look like? What would a pair of non binary trainers look like? Available in half sizes and the Adidas stripes would alternate pink and blue perhaps.

 

[monkers]

They're sexed because blokes have bigger feet lol. They're not gendered, other than manufacturers imagine girls like flowers and pink etc. This is regressive. What would an agender pair of walking boots even look like? What would a pair of non binary trainers look like? Available in half sizes and the Adidas stripes would alternate pink and blue perhaps.

I'm afraid you haven't passed the Turing Test. I'm going to pass you on to the forum bot-processing facility.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I'm not seeing much empathy for women's lived experience in this thread.

We happily accommodate people's individual lived experience, whether it's religious beliefs or beliefs about gender identity, as long as it doesn't impinge on other people's rights. When people believe their subjective lived experience should override everybody else then it's going to be a problem.

The lived experience of women close to me including my partner, daughter, nieces and even my late Mother (born 1926) had empathy for the lived experience of women. Just that their definition included both those born female and those who took to womanhood in later life.

There are undoubtedly some areas, intimate care is one, where the current provisions of the Equality Act allowing trans women to be excluded in furtherance of a wider objective are the right thing. In most others, people who look like a woman etc are women for all purposes and should be treated as such. That means a woman with a penis (albeit apparently withered by hormones) shouldn't cause a massive upset in a changing room.

If of course it were not even remotely withered but rather upstanding and ready to go with its owner behaving an a lewd fashion you're in a different place and can expect to be met by the full force of the law. As would also be the case for somebody with normal female anatomy behaving a lewd and lascivious fashion in the altogether an a female changing room.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Just that their definition included both those born female and those who took to womanhood in later life.

How can you 'take to womanhood'? It's a biological state. Can you take to 'blackness' in the same fashion? I'd like to take to 'youth'.

There are undoubtedly some areas, intimate care is one, where the current provisions of the Equality Act allowing trans women to be excluded in furtherance of a wider objective are the right thing.

So they aren't women in every circumstance then? Who decides when they aren't and are?

In most others, people who look like a woman etc are women for all purposes and should be treated as such. That means a woman with a penis (albeit apparently withered by hormones) shouldn't cause a massive upset in a changing room.

People who 'look like a woman'? So it depends on how good they are at presenting as a stereotypical female as to whether we allow them access to women's single sex spaces? Who gets to judge?

Do you honestly think girls and women who don't want to should have to change next to a male body in a changing room just because said male body has long hair and makeup on?

And as long as their penis isn't erect it's perfectly acceptable and women have no right to feel uncomfortable or intimidated?

If of course it were not even remotely withered but rather upstanding and ready to go with its owner behaving an a lewd fashion you're in a different place and can expect to be met by the full force of the law. As would also be the case for somebody with normal female anatomy behaving a lewd and lascivious fashion in the altogether an a female changing room.

So we're basing the level of discomfort that girls and women are allowed to have on the flaccidity of the genitals on the male body next to them? Men with erectile dysfunction should be just as welcome in the female changing room when they fancy a swim then I suppose.

Can you not see how utterly bonkers that is? The idea that looking like a woman gives you access to single sex spaces? The reason we exclude men from single sex spaces isn't because of looks.

It doesn't matter what the person looks like. It doesn't matter how they dress or how stereotypically female they present. They are still male.

I don't know what's more depressing really, the fact that you think 'woman' is a costume that can be worn, or the fact that not a single male who has contributed to this thread has ever said, 'You know what .... transwomen are welcome in our changing rooms, our sports' or even 'Let's make unisex provision, third spaces'. Instead it's just been an endless demand that women move over and make room.

 

[matticus]

Nobody's perfect!


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYUfPTeE0DM

 

[monkers]

@AuroraSaab

So they aren't women in every circumstance then? Who decides when they aren't and are?

Not you! There's this little ol' thing called parliamentary sovereignty.

Who gets to judge?

Not you! There's little ol' thing called the judiciary.

flaccidity of the genitals

Not the same thing as atrophy and impotence at all.

The reason we exclude men from single sex spaces isn't because of looks.

Who is this 'we'? Other than some limited exemptions, trans women are not excluded from single sex spaces, because for the purpose of the law, they are female.

The reason we exclude men from single sex spaces isn't because of looks.

Quite right, that would be unlawful, but again who are these people you call 'we'?

It doesn't matter what the person looks like. It doesn't matter how they dress or how stereotypically female they present. They are still male.

Trans women have the intersectional protected characteristics of being female before the law, and of 'gender reassignment'. These are human rights, agreed by the United Nations, including the UN Womens Group. Even the WI don't discriminate.

'Let's make unisex provision, third spaces'.

That won't work. Part of the contract with the state, is that a trans women is not required to disclose biological sex, or state recognised gender, or to produce as GRC. You are calling for some arbitrary 'right to know', by policing toilet doors. This is discriminatory and unlawful.

 

[AuroraSaab]

@AuroraSaab

Not you! There's this little ol' thing called parliamentary sovereignty.

Not you! There's little ol' thing called the judiciary.

We've already established that the Equality Act allows exclusion where proportionate, even with a GRC. And yet you keep saying it's unlawful...

Not the same thing as atrophy and impotence at all.

And having or not having a penis is not a relevant test of anything, whether it's being a woman or getting a GRC. Being of the class who have penises, working or not, is relevant though.

Other than some limited exemptions, trans women are not excluded from single sex spaces, because for the purpose of the law, they are female.

Allowed to be excluded from any legitimate single sex space where it's a proportionate exclusion with a legitimate aim.

Trans women have the intersectional protected characteristics of being female before the law, and of 'gender reassignment'. These are human rights, agreed by the United Nations, including the UN Womens Group. Even the WI don't discriminate.

That won't work. Part of the contract with the state, is that a trans women is not required to disclose biological sex, or acquired gender, or to produce as GRC. You are calling for some arbitrary 'right to know', by policing toilet doors. This is discriminatory and unlawful.

The UK law prevents discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. If you are excluded from a female single sex space for being a transwoman you are being excluded for being male, which the law allows. You are therefore discriminated against neither for being a woman nor for being transgender.

Edit: And here you go, Bristol Uni backing down and acknowledging that a women's group can rightfully exclude transwomen because of the Equality Act. Having put a student through disciplinary measures for refusing to admit transactivists to a meeting.

Not a changing room, prison, or withered penis to be seen. Just women meeting together.

https://archive.is/24thq

 

[monkers]

For anybody interested to watch ...

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-extraordinary-life-of-april-ashley

 

[Bromptonaut]

It doesn't matter how they dress or how stereotypically female they present. They are still male.

And those 2 sentences are, in a short, where my opinion and yours are totally incongruent.

So far as I am concerned somebody who looks and behaves like a woman is to be treated as female, if that's what they want, albeit with those 'adjustments' set out in the Equality Act.

No amount of whataboutery over erectile disfunction and all the rest changes that.

 

[monkers]

@AuroraSaab

I have acknowledgement that the EqA includes the that there may be exemptions. BUT that does not make blanket bans the order of things; there is no opportunity for precedent.

You even quoted my post saying there are permissible exemptions in order to say that I deny it. What is wrong with you?

Your bigotry is not a permissible exemption - that is what is unlawful.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I understand your position, Bromptonaut. I honestly think you just want to be kind. I think you recognise that there are people with body dysphoria who feel the need to present themselves in a stereotypically female way and that we should make accommodations for them. Where we differ is that I don't believe that every man who says he is a woman has gender/body dysphoria. I think there are some men who will abuse the accommodations that people make for their own satisfaction, and there are those men who will game the prison system for their own advantage.

What does 'looks and behaves like a woman' even mean? It just means adherence to stereotypes surely. Women look and behave in all sorts of different ways.

 

[AuroraSaab]

@AuroraSaab

I have acknowledgement that the EqA includes the that there may be exemptions. BUT that does not make blanket bans the order of things; there is no opportunity for precedent.

You even quoted my post saying there are permissible exemptions in order to say that I deny it. What is wrong with you?

Your bigotry is not a permissible exemption - that is what is unlawful.

I've never said there is a blanket ban constantly in place only that services and suppliers can legally exclude transwomen under the Equality Act. Some choose not to apply the exemptions.

I think there isn't an ounce of doubt that if I was on here under my own name you'd be trying to report me for a hate crime. I've said nothing unlawful, you just don't like being contradicted.

This thread really has covered everything. I'm happy to leave it for now unless there are any new developments. Perhaps they'll discover the other sexes and we can reconvene. You can have the last word if you like, Monkers ....

 

[monkers]

@AuroraSaab

I just gave you a like. Last word? That's not for either of us to say. People will post as they wish. Bye.