Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

You presented her opinion as somehow more worthy of consideration than the opinion of the bloke sitting opposite me in the cafe. Others present evidence that her opinion might not be value free. You get a bit snotty about it.
The debate progresses?

There are relevant legal tests pertaining to how worthy opinions are ...

Article 9 protects your right to freedom of thought, belief and religion​

It includes the right to change your religion or beliefs at any time.
You also have the right to put your thoughts and beliefs into action. This could include your right to wear religious clothing, the right to talk about your beliefs or take part in religious worship. Public authorities cannot stop you practising your religion, without very good reason – see the section on restrictions below.

Importantly, this right protects a wide range of non-religious beliefs including atheism, agnosticism, veganism and pacifism. For a belief to be protected under this article, it must be serious, concern important aspects of human life or behaviour, be sincerely held, and be worthy of respect in a democratic society.

If one is to conclude that the legal opinion of the former head of the Supreme Court is not worthy of respect in a democratic society because they are rich and spend their retirement at the age of 80 at a ''fancy literary festival'' then these are desperate times.

If one is also to conclude the doctors do not believe sex to be a strict binary, and that people are to be compartmentalised at every moment of every day throughout society by their sex, then again these are desperate times.

All that is obvious to me in my day-to-day dealings with other people, is that I respect their rights and freedoms as I will hope they will respect mine. That is all.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Nobody has claimed Hale has no right to hold her opinions so as usual your cut and pasting is a bit wasted.

 

[Psamathe]

Nobody has claimed Hale has no right to hold her opinions so as usual your cut and pasting is a bit wasted.

But you said:

Lady Hale's daughter is a trans activist who thinks that there aren't enough men counting as women on company boards.

To me you seem to be suggesting she's holding the opinions of her daughter not her own.

Ian

 

[AuroraSaab]

She has a right to hold her opinions. I think they are likely influenced by 1. Being out of touch with the consequences of her beliefs on ordinary women and 2. The fact that her daughter is a corporate LGBTQI+ activist.

Here's her daughter with Pips Bunce.

My opinion is that this is a classic case of 'My transwoman friend is lovely, therefore all such men can access women's spaces and services'.

 

[monkers]

Nobody has claimed Hale has no right to hold her opinions so as usual your cut and pasting is a bit wasted.

You devalued the opinion of the former head of the Supreme Court on the basis of being a rich person at a literary festival.

You have not devalued the opinion of the present head of the Supreme court, who equally may be rich. If he had also been at the same literary festival, would you have devalued his opinion too?

Of course not because he gave the opinion that suited your ideology.

Interesting that you reckon that the man knows more about what a woman is than the woman.

As I noted before, you harm women by supporting the patriarchy.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

I presented her opinion.

And why did you do that Ian?

 

[monkers]

My opinion is that this is a classic case of 'My transwoman friend is lovely, therefore all such men can access women's spaces and services'.

Except you are wrong of course.

Brenda Hale is an advocate for women. Her daughter Julia Hoggett is an advocate for women. Both of them are feminists: neither of them is a bigot.

Well I quite agree with you that citizenship has got a worldwide element as well as a nation state element, but one of the wonderful things about feminism is that we can learn to make relationships across national borders. My principal contribution to that has been with the International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ) because that has women judges as members from most of the countries in the world, it is quite remarkable, not all of which would count as democracies it has to be said, but one of the great things about getting together across those national boundaries is that you realise just how much judges have in common.

https://journals.kent.ac.uk/index.php/feministsatlaw/article/view/1148/2131#:~:text=Rather she was an avowed,at times her judicial colleagues.

Julia Hoggett on getting women on to the trading floor.

https://www.globalcapital.com/artic...ggett-on-getting-women-onto-the-trading-floor

 

[AuroraSaab]

You have not devalued the opinion of the present head of the Supreme court, who equally may be rich. If he had also been at the same literary festival, would you have devalued his opinion too?

If he said something as nonsensical as 'biological sex doesn't exist' I would.

Interesting that you reckon that the man knows more about what a woman is than the woman.

The trans movement is literally based on men saying they know what it's like to be a woman, despite having no frame of reference for that.
You do not need to be female to know there are 2 sexes.

As I noted before, you harm women by supporting the patriarchy.

This is your latest pivot. Things that harm women are somehow not the patriarchy in action, but rejecting this harm is somehow supporting the patriarchy. It's rubbish.

Julia Hoggart wants 40% of women in leadership roles but as she regards men as women - which it looks like she does - then she isn't supporting women, she is supporting the patriarchy. All of those 40% of 'women' could be men and she would be fine with it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Oh look, now the Scottish Greens have to exclude men they've abandoned gender quotas altogether. They'd rather tear the whole thing down than exclude these special men.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,...nderbalance-quotas-after-supreme-court-ruling

 

[monkers]

If he said something as nonsensical as 'biological sex doesn't exist' I would.

She didn't. She said...

The 80-year-old, who is a member of the House of Lords, also questioned what was meant by “biological sex”.

“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,” she said.

The BMA also pointed out that the Supreme Court clearly don't understand biological sex any better than you do.

Although to give you back some credit, when we considered this last we agreed - sex means there are two reproductive pathways.

Just as I will agree that on average that women are not as tall as men, it does not follow that all men are always taller than all women. It also means that being a woman is not enough to ensure she has that reproductive pathway - that does not make them less of a woman, or a man.

Nature never makes these kinds of rules because nature loves diversity.

The acronym TERF is actually an oxymoron, since feminism was not about excluding people, it was about making the world more inclusive so that women could play their part. We're not there yet, things are better than they were, but still not good enough.

 

[monkers]

Oh look, now the Scottish Greens have to exclude men they've abandoned gender quotas altogether. They'd rather tear the whole thing down than exclude these special men.

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,...nderbalance-quotas-after-supreme-court-ruling

They have ''suspended''. Learn to read.

And, in a statement on the rule change, office-bearers for the Scottish Greens said they had been “considering legal implications and risks” surrounding the party’s trans-inclusive gender-balancing mechanisms, “given the toxic, reactionary culture war that has been waged against our trans community by other parties and parts of the media”.

The legal process is in train, so not yet completed.

 

[mickle]

Humor detection skills registering at nil. I shouldn't have been surprised.

FYI. The primary requirement of humour is that it should be *funny*.

 

[monkers]

FYI. The primary requirement of humour is that it should be *funny*.

Much humour relies on something being poignant ... and it was.

 

[Ian H]

And why did you do that Ian?

AI Overview
Social media works by providing platforms for users to connect, share information, and engage with one another through various forms of content. These platforms, which include websites and apps, facilitate communication and relationship-building in a digital environment

 

[bobzmyunkle]

AI Overview
Social media works by providing platforms for users to connect, share information, and engage with one another through various forms of content. These platforms, which include websites and apps, facilitate communication and relationship-building in a digital environment

Well that doesn't seem to be working 100%.
Perhaps if you engaged in discussion rather than resorting your usual pompous replies things would move on better.
If you insist on presenting nonsense like

“I was with some doctors last week who said there is no such thing as biological sex,”

I doubt there's any common ground. But add in the pomposity and I can't even say I respect your opinion.