Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
CXRAndy
Guru
What does that mean? You need to clarify which sex you're talking about in each sentence.
There is no forcing of women into men's spaces. IF a woman wants to use unisex, she can, with all the known risks for her to take
monkers
Squire
You have no need to know about people's private lives, and no right to demand it. If I did happen to be a trans person, you'd be about the last person I could trust with the information.
The Forum record shows that you fish for personal and private information on the forum, and whatever that information is, you use it against that person.
I guess we will never know who you are. And you know what - I have no interest in you whatsoever.
monkers
Squire
This is the state of affairs ... this guy says it perfectly ...
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xed5MI6rcwQ?feature=share
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xed5MI6rcwQ?feature=share
AuroraSaab
Shaman
I'm not. That you continually misunderstand the arguments is your problem.
If you're talking about unisex 3rd spaces, then as long as women also have a single sex option it is up to them if they then choose to use unisex spaces.
monkers
Squire
Actually it seems that you are trying to get people who are legally men into women's spaces whether they have a penis or not - better still if they have, then they can get an instant erection at the press of a button! Gotta take care of the ladies right?
AuroraSaab
Shaman
Ah, by 'legally men' you mean trans identifying women then. Better get advocating - as I have - for those 3rd spaces then. Problem solved.
Funny how trans groups can exclude non trans people from their events (which they can under the Equality Act and which I agree with them doing) but insist so aggressively on men accessing women's spaces and services.
Funny how trans groups can exclude non trans people from their events (which they can under the Equality Act and which I agree with them doing) but insist so aggressively on men accessing women's spaces and services.
monkers
Squire
I mean those men who happen to have a trans history.
For the purposes of the GRA and the EqA, such men are men for all of their purposes.
To quote you there are only two sexes, and the law agrees with you. You are the segregationist here.
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xed5MI6rcwQ?feature=share
Last edited:
CXRAndy
Guru
Experts agree with this
View: https://x.com/forestvanslyke/status/1928187131333144832?t=XpxLN9Q3J92KJ16W7jaRUQ&s=19
View: https://x.com/forestvanslyke/status/1928187131333144832?t=XpxLN9Q3J92KJ16W7jaRUQ&s=19
monkers
Squire
I've told you repeatedly not to reply to me with Twitter links. I don't have a Twitter account, have not used Twitter.
AuroraSaab
Shaman
Women then. The supreme court made it clear that service providers should ensure that such women, and men, who don't identify with their sex are still accomodated. This can be done by offering unisex 3rd spaces or trans specific services.
Of course this doesn't provide the validation of being in the spaces of the opposite sex but it's a perfectly workable compromise.
monkers
Squire
The exclusion of trans people has been a manufactured process. It relied on political appointments and political interference - Falkner, Cass, and now the Supreme Court.
It's held together with a string of lies that you've been parroting endlessly.
But we know what parliament intended with the 2004 act and with the 2010 act.
I have all of the records of the drafting committee, all printed out and in folders right here at my side. Together in this house we've combed every paragraph and every page. There is absolute and indisputable evidence from the then Solicitor General. The European Court of Human Rights are beyond the reaches of UK politicians. When it gets there, the truth will out.
Q75 Dr Harris: Yes, indeed, but let us say they did, “But we are not going to allow a woman priest who is in possession of a Gender Recognition Certificate, who is a woman”. They would argue that is a permitted exception under gender reassignment. Is that a clash with the sex discrimination provisions?
Vera Baird: Is that right? She is a woman now for all purposes, not a transgender person, a woman.
Q76 Dr Harris: Right.
Vera Baird: That is the point of the certificate, is it not, to make it clear beyond doubt and that is where all her rights come from.
Q77 Dr Harris: So what you are saying is someone with a certificate does not fall within the protected ground and, therefore, exceptions on that protected ground—
Vera Baird: (interrupting). Will fall within the protected ground of sex.
Chairman: I think you have answered the question.
The Solicitor General makes it plain that the rights that come from 2004 flow through the Equality Act, it was not necessary to write that within the EqA, it was ''clear beyond doubt''. Melanie Field, the Lead Writer of the Bill was correct.
Last edited:
CXRAndy
Guru
I'm not here for you 😁
monkers
Squire
You made the link in a reply to me. If you wish to publish your garbage incessantly I guess you can, just don't pretend that I'm not the target when you do so in reply to me.
CXRAndy
Guru
No I didn't, you have some form of inferiority complex.
