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.