Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

There are only two reproductive pathways which all mamals develop along: Female and Male. Under normal circumstances the female body is the one set up to create large gametes, the male small gametes.

And if you think that this simple observable scientific fact reduces women to body parts, that just means you don't think much of women.

People born with missing or ambiguous genitalia are still female or male. Folks with dsd's are still either male or female.

Infertile people still have a sex.

People with dad's are still male or female. As are Down's Syndrome people.

Nobody has ever said the size of your boobs defines your sex. Literally nobody.

Again. Never been a thing. People have all sorts of voice pitches.

Yes, obviously. Men with low testosterone and artificial female hormones aren't women. We agree at last.

Of course there are. A piece of paper can't change your sex in real life. It's a fiction.

Appropriating the Holocaust. Classy.

And if the female hormones are a natural production in a male body, what then? Something over which they have no control.

You're keen on pointing out the artificial side of things, but the natural occurring ones are just the same, except for the fact they can be ignored in your mind as not applicable. Is this because there's no company "pushing their product" to blame for this?

 

[monkers]

She had not requested a change of NHS number, it just happened by default. Certainly the consultant in the fracture clinic was unable to access the X-rays. Her GP had told her that is was usual for X-rays to be sent to her by that hospital, but this had not been done.

Icowden said ... I doubt her NHS number changed. The referral may well have been miscoded. They have lost the data somehow - in the sense that they can't find it rather than it not being there I would suspect.

N says her NHS number has definitely changed. She has paperwork with the former number, and the more recent paperwork with the new NHS number with the '4' in it she said. (She's gone to bed now, so I won't ask her).

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's the law and I'm sitting next to a barrister who says you're an idiot.

Lol. If a trans person flew to a country that didn't recognise anything other than your original birth certificate, they would treat them as their birth sex. It's not your birth certificate that makes you a certain sex, though in the UK the law allows you be treated as a different sex in certain circumstances. There are millions of people on earth whose birth was never recorded. They still have a sex.

So in short, there's nothing helpful there either in defining 'what a woman is'. Every attempt to define what a woman is, even by women, fails.

So let's just let us women say, 'I am a woman'. Job done.

Nah. It's perfectly clear that there are two exclusive types of human bodies. Sometimes your sex matters and allowing men to self identify into the female category can be harmful to women. Our biology affects our lives so you can only say 'I am a woman' if you were born female. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking born of a desire to be something science and nature dictates that you can never be.

 

[icowden]

N says her NHS number has definitely changed. She has paperwork with the former number, and the more recent paperwork with the new NHS number with the '4' in it she said. (She's gone to bed now, so I won't ask her).

That's also really odd. NHS numbers only get changed if you are adopted or change gender.

Your NHS number is assigned to you soon after you're born or the first time you get NHS care or treatment.
This number is valid for life unless you're assigned a new number due to a reason like adoption or gender reassignment.

Get them to check they haven't done something really stupid like create a duplicate record under a new NHS number. They may well find all her notes and images under the other number.

 

[classic33]

It doesn't make sense, unless the prison officers were saying that they were afraid of what she might do to herself given these long daily periods of isolation. The detriment of such isolation to mental health are well-documented. BK is obviously a very difficult prisoner for the service to manage. I will otherwise guess that they used 'the officers are scared' as justifiable concern to seek the move.

It's part of the risk assessment carried out, since the sentence was passed. Prior to the court case she was being held, on remand, in Limerick Prison(women's section) because the law was followed.

The "move" was talked about before she ever reached court. So in that respect isn't anything new. The prison service are merely carrying out the order as given in the court. Some don't want to see it that way, and want to promote it as a victory for women in prison.

Overlooked is the fact that there are two child murderers, who just happen to women, being held in solitary/isolation in the same prison for exactly the same reason. Staff safety and the safety of the general prison population. This would mean that they would have to acknowledge the fact that twice as many women, no GRC's, are as dangerous to staff and other prisoners as the one trans woman held there.

 

[monkers]

Lol. If a trans person flew to a country that didn't recognise anything other than your original birth certificate, they would treat them as their birth sex. It's not your birth certificate that makes you a certain sex, though in the UK the law allows you be treated as a different sex in certain circumstances. There are millions of people on earth whose birth was never recorded. They still have a sex.



Nah. It's perfectly clear that there are two exclusive types of human bodies. Sometimes your sex matters and allowing men to self identify into the female category can be harmful to women. Our biology affects our lives so you can only say 'I am a woman' if you were born female. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking born of a desire to be something science and nature dictates that you can never be.

You're still an idiot. You can't stop your pretence that there are 'women's rights'. Men had more rights than women, and now they don't.

Now there are just sex-based rights, and it really doesn't matter what your sex is for the purposes of the EqA 2010 - male and female rights just the same.

Likewise the convention rights from which the law flows. A woman must not be treated less favourably than a man. A man must not be treated less favourably than a woman.

This 'hard won women's rights' stuff that you keep babbling on about is just tosh. It's a fiction, a spent ideology running around the inside of your head.

That is not to say that the healthcare needs for men and women are the same, but both sexes should have equal expectation in getting the services they need in a timely manner.

Even the WI doesn't agree with your nonsense. It says that people who live as women are woman enough to become members.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And if the female hormones are a natural production in a male body, what then? Something over which they have no control.

You're keen on pointing out the artificial side of things, but the natural occurring ones are just the same, except for the fact they can be ignored in your mind as not applicable. Is this because there's no company "pushing their product" to blame for this?

Our body also produces natural endorphins. But if there was a $2 billion dollar industry based around selling a synthetic version to people from ages 11 and up, when the effects might be unknown, negative and irreversible, and with very little gatekeeping, we might all say, 'Hang on a minute ...' .

Naturally occurring hormones at the normal level = good. Large doses of not naturally occurring hormones, not required for a medical condition = proceed with caution.

 

[classic33]

Lol. If a trans person flew to a country that didn't recognise anything other than your original birth certificate, they would treat them as their birth sex. It's not your birth certificate that makes you a certain sex, though in the UK the law allows you be treated as a different sex in certain circumstances. There are millions of people on earth whose birth was never recorded. They still have a sex.



Nah. It's perfectly clear that there are two exclusive types of human bodies. Sometimes your sex matters and allowing men to self identify into the female category can be harmful to women. Our biology affects our lives so you can only say 'I am a woman' if you were born female. Otherwise it's just wishful thinking born of a desire to be something science and nature dictates that you can never be.

What about hermaphrodites?

 

[monkers]

That's also really odd. NHS numbers only get changed if you are adopted or change gender.


Get them to check they haven't done something really stupid like create a duplicate record under a new NHS number. They may well find all her notes and images under the other number.

Her NHS number was changed automatically on receiving her GRC.

 

[monkers]

What about hermaphrodites?

True hermaphrodites do not exist in the human population Classic.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're still an idiot. You can't stop your pretence that there are 'women's rights'. Men had more rights than women, and now they don't.

Now there are just sex-based rights, and it really doesn't matter what your sex is for the purposes of the EqA 2010 - male and female rights just the same.

Likewise the convention rights from which the law flows. A woman must not be treated less favourable than a man. A man must not be treated less favourable than a woman.

This 'hard won women's rights' stuff that you keep babbling on about is just tosh. It's a fiction, a spent ideology running around the inside of your head.

That is not to say that the healthcare needs for men and women are the same, but both sexes should have equal expectation is getting the services they need in a timely manner.

Even the WI doesn't agree with your nonsense. It says that people who live as women are woman enough to become members.

If there were only sex based rights then 'Transgender' wouldn't be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act because all trans people would be covered by the characteristic of Sex.

I'm not sure the WI has ever been the arbiter of biological truths. They're getting a bit of a kicking from their members on Twitter over it all though.

You really are quite the rudest person on Cycle Chat lol. Still, I don't mind. It's aggression fuelled by the realisation that the public are waking up to all this gender nonsense and No Debate is well and truly over.

We can go over the same stuff on here a million times but when we all get up in the morning we'll be the same sex as the day we were born.

 

[monkers]

If there were only sex based rights then 'Transgender' wouldn't be a protected characteristic under the Equality Act because all trans people would be covered by the characteristic of Sex.

I'm not sure the WI has ever been the arbiter of biological truths. They're getting a bit of a kicking from their members on Twitter over it all though.

You really are quite the rudest person on Cycle Chat lol. Still, I don't mind. It's aggression fuelled by the realisation that the public are waking up to all this gender nonsense and No Debate is well and truly over.

We can go over the same stuff on here a million times but when we all get up in the morning we'll be the same sex as the day we were born.

We can go over stuff a million times as you say, because you don't accept facts and keep making stuff up.

For example in this post you've made up your own fact - 'transgender' is not a protected characteristic in the EqA 2010. In that first post I made #918 I explained a little of why the word 'transgender can be problematic.

So I guess you are going to waste my time if I explain it again, because you'll go on your own silly way of repeat and rinse, repeat and rinse.

Transgender is an umbrella term that includes people who crossdress but do not experience incongruency. Many of those people, but not all, are fetishists. They are not covered by the EqA 2010. The protected characteristic is 'gender reassigment' which is nothing to do with fetishism, but everything to do with that group of people who wish to have their gender recognised by the state for the purposes of recording the births and deaths in their acquired gender, and to stop discrimination from bigots. That is the purpose of the EqA - to stop discrimination.

It's ironic that you wish to repurpose an act designed to have the specific purpose of stopping discrimination to become a document to enable discrimination against trans people.

 

[icowden]

Her NHS number was changed automatically on receiving her GRC.

It wasn't automatic. It has to be triggered by the GP. They are the NHS number gatekeepers.

Incidentally that bit in the article about NHS Numbers being coded for gender is nonsense. The last digit is a checksum digit that verifies the rest of the NHS number is valid.

 

[monkers]

It wasn't automatic. It has to be triggered by the GP. They are the NHS number gatekeepers.

Incidentally that bit in the article about NHS Numbers being coded for gender is nonsense. The last digit is a checksum digit that verifies the rest of the NHS number is valid.

Sure, but that instruction to the GP must have come downwards in process from the gender recognition panel rather than from a request from N.

 

[monkers]

Naked Education on Channel 4.

I haven't been watching, and wasn't sure that it was something I wanted to see.

Now having read the article linked below, I feel compelled ...

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/04...8YYCP6lTCVXXWqlrRQzYBT7FdyFu5boTuK36HqidIYX0U