Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

No, I don't. I claim that men identifying as women have the same risk of being offenders as any other man. Most significantly though, they are still men, just the same as other men.

Your claim is that there is a special subset of men who should be treated differently from other men. This is based on 1. Saying they are women and (more recently) 2. Having a certificate.

This is clearly illogical and in hundreds of posts you have yet to prove why it should be the case that some men get preferential treatment.

Evidence Aurora. Not transphobic opinion. Evidence.

 

[AuroraSaab]

By narrowing your view to saying that only men with a GRC are truly trans, a group for which prison statistics are not available, you imagine you have somehow found a loophole. You haven't. You've just shown that you have to resort to gymnastics in order to come remotely near proving that trans identifying men with a certificate are some special little subset to whom a free pass must be given.

Unsurprisingly it isn't an argument that holds any weight with the general public or the government either.

 

[monkers]

By narrowing your view to saying that only men with a GRC are truly trans, a group for which prison statistics are not available, you imagine you have somehow found a loophole. You haven't. You've just shown that you have to resort to gymnastics in order to come remotely near proving that trans identifying men with a certificate are some special little subset to whom a free pass must be given.

Unsurprisingly it isn't an argument that holds any weight with the general public or the government either.

It's not a loophole. The government and the commission are planning on removing the rights of trans women with a GRC, and not because the SC ruled it. Already they are saying that trans women with a GRC can be excluded from women's toilets, and men's toilets too with a low bar exclusion.

This is a return to pre 1884 days when a class of people (women) had no toilet facilities.

So yes I'm addressing this specific group because you keep saying they have no place in a women's toilet. The only reason you say is because of ''discomfort''. That is not a legal basis.

Yet you continue to say that allowing trans women to be in the women's toilet is because they make women unsafe. You call them many slurs including 'predators'.

It's a disgusting slur to say and you need to bring evidence or retract the claim.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's not a loophole. The government and the commission are planning on removing the rights of trans women with a GRC, and not because the SC ruled it. Already they are saying that trans women with a GRC can be excluded from women's toilets, and men's toilets too with a low bar exclusion.

They never had those rights.

So yes I'm addressing this specific group because you keep saying they have no place in a women's toilet. The only reason you say is because of ''discomfort''. That is not a legal basis.

Yes, it is under the Equality Act - it would be a legitimate reason in some cases to exclude men because their presence would cause the discomfort of not having privacy or dignity, eg hospital ward or intimate care.

Yet you continue to say that allowing trans women to be in the women's toilet is because they make women unsafe. You call them many slurs including 'predators'.

It's a disgusting slur to say and you need to bring evidence or retract the claim.

I haven't called them predators. I've said these men should be treated the same as other men for safeguarding purposes. You have yet to convince me that they deserve special, privileged treatment.

 

[mickle]

Happy 'Thank a TERF Day' everyone!

 

[CXRAndy]

Looks like NHS is dragging its feet over enacting single sex spaces for workers and female wards

 

[mickle]

Looks like NHS is dragging its feet over enacting single sex spaces for workers and female wards

The taxpayer will not be happy...

 

[Bromptonaut]

They never had those rights.

If they had a GRC they absolutely did so far as bathrooms etc are concerned.

There were a few exceptions but with a high bar around proportionate means/legitimate ends.

 

[CXRAndy]

If the bathrooms said women or female, they should never had gone in whether with or without a piece of paper

 

[monkers]

 

[CXRAndy]

It's not all about safety, dignity, privacy are also huge concerns for women.

 

[monkers]

It's not all about safety, dignity, privacy are also huge concerns for women.

A long time ago there was an invention - we call it a ''door''. A ''door'' is a special device which can be used to separate a private space from a public space. Check on X, there may even be somebody there who understand the concept, you never know.

 

[monkers]

It's not all about safety, dignity, privacy are also huge concerns for women.

You are mansplaining - pack it in - women don't need men to tell them what they need.

 

[AuroraSaab]

If they had a GRC they absolutely did so far as bathrooms etc are concerned.

There were a few exceptions but with a high bar around proportionate means/legitimate ends.

They didn't. The EHRC clarified this in 2022.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

Stonewall etc spent years telling companies they trans people had access to single sex spaces, GRC or not. They didn't.

Also, there's no special thing about bathrooms - it's any space where exclusion (on whichever grounds) is a proportionate means to a legitimate end.

Given that service providers are usually not in a position to ask for a GRC, it would be ridiculous if the law made a certificate the entry pass.

 

[monkers]

They didn't. The EHRC clarified this in 2022.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

Stonewall etc spent years telling companies they trans people had access to single sex spaces, GRC or not. They didn't.

Also, there's no special thing about bathrooms - it's any space where exclusion (on whichever grounds) is a proportionate means to a legitimate end.

Given that service providers are usually not in a position to ask for a GRC, it would be ridiculous if the law made a certificate the entry pass.

Again though I see that rape and violent assault is being set as the benchmark for what women and girls must put up with. Anything less doesn't count.

You should read your link Fruitloops.

We use the term ‘biological sex’ because this is how legal sex is defined under the Equality Act for people who do not have a Gender Recognition Certificate.

Under the Equality Act 2010, ‘sex’ is understood as binary, being a man or a woman. For the purposes of the Act, a person’s legal sex is their biological sex as recorded on their birth certificate. A trans person can change their legal sex by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate. A trans person who does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate retains the sex recorded on their birth certificate for the purposes of the Act.