Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

...... you're here acknowledging that some demographics have different needs and we take steps to accommodate that - which might mean excluding other groups. Seems fair enough.

Try getting a wheelchair through a standard door, you'll find it can't be done with the person still in it.

Early ones were often money driven as well. You were there, so you might at least have a look round, possibly even buy something.

Just because they were/are built for disabled people doesn't stop anyone else using them. Men or women.

 

[classic33]

Oh dear. Falls back on abuse every single time. We have segregated toilets by biological sex for a hundred years. It is legal to exclude males from the Women's and females from the Men's. The fact that some men who identify women have managed to ignore that and use them does not make that fact untrue.

Funny that so many gender critical feminists are lesbians and dislike the forced teaming with the trans community - it's hardly a harmonious homogenous group as you claim. If they want their own group, let them have it. Noone would dream of telling trans people they can't go do their own thing*. You seem very bitter about the fact that some lesbian women have no interest whatsoever in transwomen who say they are lesbians. Surely that is entirely up to them.

It must be exhausting being so hyperbolic. I'm chuffed to be spoken of in the same breath as Kathleen Stock and J K Rowling though. They seem absolutely lovely when you see them interviewed.

*You're doing fairly well on that point.

 

[multitool]

Auroracwill be along in a minute

According to the Trans Murder Monitoring website, 11 trans people were murdered between 2008 and 2022 in the UK. (2 of these are disputed, so possibly only 9). Trans people are a relatively safe demographic.

That is a really revealing comment, and shows your actual attitude and lack of compassion for trans people.

As if the only aspect of safety is maybe not being murdered.

 

[monkers]

I merely tell the truth about the law instead of just making stuff up - like you saying that we already segregate toilets by biological sex. Idiocy. You know nothing - make that less than nothing.

Aurora ...Oh dear. Falls back on abuse every single time. We have segregated toilets by biological sex for a hundred years. It is legal to exclude males from the Women's and females from the Men's. The fact that some men who identify women have managed to ignore that and use them does not make that fact untrue.

If you don't like the word 'idiot' - don't worry I have others.

So if you are not an idiot you can prove it by quoting the law that shows it is legal to exclude all people born male from a female toilet and vice versa.

This is something I've asked you to do before. You've never managed to do so, yet you still claim it. I accept people can make mistakes, but once you have made a claim of fact that you can't back up, and then continue to press the claim relentlessly, you do indeed present yourself as an idiot in plain sight.

So let's have it, only I'm not aware of it. And 'social mores' which you've relied on as your wiggle room doesn't cut it.

 

[monkers]

A little word to other thread readers.

You might assume that I'm annoyed with Aurora because of her hostility to trans people. That is undeniable.

But more than this I can not abide liars, and especially people who lie to disadvantage others.

The legal perspective regarding toilets is perfectly straightforward, the law can not be modified to redefine areas defined as 'public spaces' to 'private spaces'. But this is the level of idiocy being demanded.

Any man can legally be in the women's loo. Any woman can legally be in the men's loo. What the law regulates is not who can be in there, but what they may do in there. Dignity is only affronted, and privacy only invaded if people can not carry out their bodily functions behind a closed door. The washing of hands, or touching up lippy is not a private matter.

One woman I know, I don't consider her a friend, has said that she objects to trans women being in the loo because if she needs to buy a tampon from a vending machine, she wants to be able to do that in private. Well she'd better buy them on-line than in the supermarket then where they merrily bustle down conveyer belts with nobody so much a blinking an eye. Not that I'm completely insensitive, when I was teaching, I made sanitary products free for girls by providing them myself. They had the means to take one, though we called it 'borrowing' some girls used to top up the drawer as well, though it wasn't a requirement. This was done because others didn't need to know it was that time of the month, and it's not reasonable subject for any teasing or taunting from others.

The practicalities of this are that women have the opportunity to do their private stuff behind a closed door, as do men. In the men's loo though everybody knows that the communal urinal means that things might be on display. Therefore it is more reasonable to argue that women should be excluded from the men's that men from the women's.

People get up to illegal activities in public toilets, drugs, cottaging, exposure, etc. The law prohibits those activities. And for any men reading this, be in no doubt, women get up to plenty of stuff in the women's loos that they shouldn't.

Last point, in my younger days, I've been enough clubs and club loos to have seen a few things. I've seen women fighting, usually lesbians to be fair, I've seen women just squat and piss on the floor rather than queue, I've seen spitting, I've seen women 'chasing a line', bringing in glasses of drink and necking them. I've been mugged by a gang of three young women. I've seen transvestites and crossdressers, I've seen drag queens, I've seen trans women.

Out of all of the people I've seen, who are the ones who show the most anxiety to be in there, be best behaved, try to be the least conspicuous, and to get out as fast as they can? Well that's trans women, because they hate the thought of making anyone feel uncomfortable, or invite trouble for themselves - that's because they are more vulnerable.


Mumsnet is a site with a particular reputation for gender critical women to be very vocal about trans women. Despite this, there was a thread about who may legally be in a women's loo. I read the first page or two of replies of rather many. I found that thread again today after a search. Of the posts I read, not one woman said that trans women were using the women's toilets illegally. Views ranged from 'don't actually care' to some very aggressive ones.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens...-the-womens-toilet-in-England-Scotland?page=3

Hence I say, what is being demanded are extra rights. Extra rights when the government are not invested in protecting people using existing rights, and more invested in repealing rights.

 

[AuroraSaab]

As if the only aspect of safety is maybe not being murdered.

This is a major shift from your earlier position where you were only interested in the cold hard facts of crime statistics in toilets and any mention I made of dignity and privacy was denounced as goalpost shifting.

The statistics on crimes against transgender people are not always recorded in full detail so it's hard to make a full analysis. You should look at the site I mentioned if you wish to understand transgender murder stats though.

If you don't like the word 'idiot' - don't worry I have others. So if you are not an idiot you can prove it by quoting the law that shows it is legal to exclude all people born male from a female toilet and vice versa.
This is something I've asked you to do before. You've never managed to do so, yet you still claim it.

Either sex can be excluded from services intended for the other sex if it's 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. It's not a blanket ban on every single service or space but it doesn't have to be case by case either.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

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

It applies to those with a Gender Recognition Certificate too, as long it is still proportionate and legitimate.

I've provided these type of quotes half a dozen times and you still insist they don't exist in the Equality Act. The provision is there to exclude.

Perhaps this is why we need the Equality Act to be clarified even further.

When you choose to spend half your post calling someone an idiot I'm not sure it does anything for your argument.

 

[AuroraSaab]

But more than this I can not abide liars, and especially people who lie to disadvantage others.

More abuse in absence of logical argument.

The legal perspective regarding toilets is perfectly straightforward, the law can not be modified to redefine areas defined as 'public spaces' to 'private spaces'. But this is the level of idiocy being demanded.

Simply not true. See earlier Equality Act quotes. A toilet or a rape crisis meeting for women is not a public space that requires access to be given to all.

Any man can legally be in the women's loo. Any woman can legally be in the men's loo. What the law regulates is not who can be in there, but what they may do in there.

Simply not true. A male being denied access to a women's toilet could sue for discrimination, but they wouldn't get very far.

People get up to illegal activities in public toilets, drugs, cottaging, exposure, etc. The law prohibits those activities.

The law deals with the event after it occurs. Excluding males from female spaces is one of the ways we help to prevent such things happening.

Hence I say, what is being demanded are extra rights.

Those pesky women, demanding their single sex hospital wards, asking to be amongst only women in a prison or a domestic violence shelter..... uppity, privileged women demanding their extra rights by excluding males.

Do black people next. Explain why their having separate groups is demanding extra rights and an example of them being privileged.

 

[monkers]

This is a major shift from your earlier position where you were only interested in the cold hard facts of crime statistics in toilets and any mention I made of dignity and privacy was denounced as goalpost shifting.

The statistics on crimes against transgender people are not always recorded in full detail so it's hard to make a full analysis. You should look at the site I mentioned if you wish to understand transgender murder stats though.



Either sex can be excluded from services intended for the other sex if it's 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. It's not a blanket ban on every single service or space but it doesn't have to be case by case either.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

View attachment 3707

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

View attachment 3708

It applies to those with a Gender Recognition Certificate too, as long it is still proportionate and legitimate.

I've provided these type of quotes half a dozen times and you still insist they don't exist in the Equality Act. The provision is there to exclude.

Perhaps this is why we need the Equality Act to be clarified even further.

When you choose to spend half your post calling someone an idiot I'm not sure it does anything for your argument.

You are still presenting as an idiot. You have not shown that the law prevents men or trans women from being in a women's public toilet.

In the first case you've shown one example of a legal provision that says you can not have a blanket rule. The practical example shows how a departure can be permissible from the law in a limited way. This requires a justification based on careful consideration or may otherwise be held to be unlawful. This very much says then that this is not a blanket rule that can be applied - which is what you have claimed.

This is exactly what is meant by a case-by-case basis.

In the second case, these are guidelines, they are not statute, not law. And again it shows that a blanket ban can not be applied.

So rather than prove that you can just exclude trans women or men from women's toilets, you proved the opposite, you can't. Idiot.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Only you could read this and say 'Idiot. It quite clearly says men can attend!'.

I've consistently said the same thing - either sex can be excluded from spaces and services if it is proportionate and legitimate. You don't have to assess each individual male and decide whether he personally can attend your women only rape counselling group session.

You really are knocking it out of the park on the rudeness front this morning. There's such a bitterness and desperation to these posts it's almost tiring to read now. Still crack on with it if you like.

 

[monkers]

@AuroraSaab

Your manipulation of the truth is in plain sight - do you think that intelligent people can not see it.

You said that ''I am demanding an end to single sex spaces''. You also said that toilets are already segregates as single sex spaces on the basis of biological sex, and others can be legally removed.

This fails in a number of ways;

1 I have made no such demand, or indeed any other demand - this is a lie.
2 Biological sex is not the most usual determinant for toilet allocation.
3 There is no law to prevent men or trans women from being in a women's public toilet.
4 An area defined as a 'public space' can not therefore be defined as 'private space'.
5 The law does not permit the exclusion of people of one sex from the sex of another, unless there are very unusual and specific circumstances - which is exactly why there must be careful consideration, a justification, and some means of providing an alternative service rather than discriminate.

So I'm making no demands, but I am saying that when you are asked for evidence, you should happily provide it, especially when you repeat the claim, and even more especially when you are claiming that something is the law. It goes beyond being bad advice.

Rather than prove your claim, you proved that you were lying, but resent being seen as either a liar or an idiot.

I'm not trying to close you down, but debate is not debate at all if people just contribute rants against already marginalised groups, obvious lies, and slurs in every reference to them. These are tell of an obvious phobia. It is obvious to me that you harbour that phobia.

When it comes to violence being incited against trans women, you even say that not enough of them are being killed to make it a problem.

Yet the example you repeat is that in one case, one young person punched a woman. That young person was punished and demonised all through their trial by gender critical activists in attendance. The judge had to keep stopping the trial due to their behaviour. The judgement was that this was a very low level of assault. Trans women? Doesn't even matter to you that they may not be activists, not enough murdered to be a problem. This is how one-sided your thinking has become. That is bigotry.

Can you not see how this looks? Because it looks rather like the path to fascism, and there actually is a reason for that. It's not just a lazy or disproportionate slur.

 

[AuroraSaab]

All violence and intimidation is wrong in ordinary circumstances. I've never sought to excuse it or minimise the distress it must cause. I've shown lots of examples of the behaviour of radical trans activists so let's not pretend the assault on Maria MacLachlan has been the only incident.

I think people can read the discussion on here and make their own minds up if there is, on occasion, a clash of rights. You simply deny there isn't and offer no suggestions of a way forward. This is because even the slightest acknowledgement that there should be exclusive spaces and services for women is a recognition that transwomen aren't really women at all. It has to be all or nothing, access to everywhere and to everything, or the whole thing falls apart.

Your posts on here increasingly consist of repetive claims, irrelevant anecdotes, and lots of personal abuse. This worked well on the old forum where the moderators felt compelled to shut down threads that got heated. It won't work on here. No Debate is over, both on NACA and in the public sphere.

Absent of any new developments in the gender debate, I'll be giving the casual readers of the thread a rest from our endless tit for tat analysis of the Equality Act. They can read the quotes for themselves.

 

[multitool]

This is a major shift from your earlier position where you were only interested in the cold hard facts of crime statistics in toilets and any mention I made of dignity and privacy was denounced as goalpost shifting.

That irony was the entire point of my post.

But still, it shows your attitude to trans women.

 

[classic33]

More abuse in absence of logical argument.[1]

Simply not true. See earlier Equality Act quotes. A toilet or a rape crisis meeting for women is not a public space that requires access to be given to all.[2]

Simply not true. A male being denied access to a women's toilet could sue for discrimination, but they wouldn't get very far.

The law deals with the event after it occurs. Excluding males from female spaces is one of the ways we help to prevent such things happening.[3]

Those pesky women, demanding their single sex hospital wards, asking to be amongst only women in a prison or a domestic violence shelter..... uppity, privileged women demanding their extra rights by excluding males.[4]

Do black people next. Explain why their having separate groups is demanding extra rights and an example of them being privileged.[5]

1. Maybe take a look at how you've been responding to other posters, before you comment on the actions of others. I have said you've been lying, when you've made things up to support your claims. You can do your own searching.
2. "There is no law prohibiting anyone from using the toilet of the opposite sex. I've seen men take their kids into the women's to change them or help them, and no one minds. I've used the mens in an emergency and it makes men uncomfortable. Taken from, https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens...-to-use-the-womens-toilet-in-England-Scotland
3. And if the trans women had been raped, would you deny her the same rights as any other person in that position? As one such centre, currently facing legal action, their response, https://survivorsnetwork.org.uk/trans-inclusion-statement-2021/
4. I've been in mixed wards, and had women on the same ward talk to me as I lay on the bed(drips and monitors limiting movement) so they stopped as they passed to try and cheer me up Talk about what had been done, what they'd had done. Simple everyday conversation in a hospital ward.
5. I'll leave that to you, you seem better at alienating everyone than me.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that trans women are legally women, trans men are legally men. However they are people, and that little bit seems to be forgotten.

 

[monkers]

All violence and intimidation is wrong in ordinary circumstances. I've never sought to excuse it or minimise the distress it must cause. I've shown lots of examples of the behaviour of radical trans activists so let's not pretend the assault on Maria MacLachlan has been the only incident.

I think people can read the discussion on here and make their own minds up if there is, on occasion, a clash of rights. You simply deny there isn't and offer no suggestions of a way forward. This is because even the slightest acknowledgement that there should be exclusive spaces and services for women is a recognition that transwomen aren't really women at all. It has to be all or nothing, access to everywhere and to everything, or the whole thing falls apart.

Your posts on here increasingly consist of repetive claims, irrelevant anecdotes, and lots of personal abuse. This worked well on the old forum where the moderators felt compelled to shut down threads that got heated. It won't work on here. No Debate is over, both on NACA and in the public sphere.

As the law stands there is no clash of rights. Remember I'm not taking sides or offering you an opinion. I'm stating facts about the law.

You perceive a clash of rights because the law is not based on the 'social mores' that you had assumed were the law. Trans women had never before been prevented from being in 'women's spaces'. The EqA does not say trans women can just be banned on the basis of biological sex. It is much more nuanced than that.

If you wish to show a contest, then it must show a contest between Convention Rights, and none exists. Hypothetically if there was a contest, it would need to show that a qualified right was being used to hold legal preponderance over an absolute right. This has been already carefully considered, no such contest of convention rights has come to light to my knowledge. But if you can show me otherwise, then I'll be happy to concede the point.

The EqA 2010 is concerned with one law only, that no body should experience discrimination. The EqA is not a human rights law. What it is though is the law that says how the right of free of discrimination is to be tackled. The human right is the Convention right which is cemented into UK law by the UK Human Rights Act. The logic flows thus, repeal of the UK Human Rights Act means that the convention is no longer respected. Withdrawal from the European Court of Human Rights means that the convention are so disrespected that they are disapplied.

This means we go backwards and rely on government to put a Bill before parliament (if we're lucky). The contents of the Bill we be produced by a government who are sponsored by Tufton Street who principally are sponsored by wealthy American right wing christian groups.

Those 'hard won women's rights' will need to be bid for all over again - principally by the same types of people that held back women's rights in the first place.

This is not a win, it is a loss.

For all practical purposes, if AuroraSaab meets a trans woman entering a publicly accessible women's toilet, and AS tries to exclude her, then AS will be acting unlawfully because under the terms of the EqA 2010 which serves the purpose of enforcing Convention Rights, it will be a case of direct discrimination under the law.

Do you deny this?

Your assertion of me making 'repetitive claims' is also false, just as your false claim that I am making demands. I have made repetitive statements of facts to refute your false claims. Make a false claim on a point of law, and I'll be right along behind to say you are wrong.

 

[classic33]

All violence and intimidation is wrong in ordinary circumstances. I've never sought to excuse it or minimise the distress it must cause. I've shown lots of examples of the behaviour of radical trans activists so let's not pretend the assault on Maria MacLachlan has been the only incident.

I think people can read the discussion on here and make their own minds up if there is, on occasion, a clash of rights. You simply deny there isn't and offer no suggestions of a way forward. This is because even the slightest acknowledgement that there should be exclusive spaces and services for women is a recognition that transwomen aren't really women at all. It has to be all or nothing, access to everywhere and to everything, or the whole thing falls apart.

Your posts on here increasingly consist of repetive claims, irrelevant anecdotes, and lots of personal abuse. This worked well on the old forum where the moderators felt compelled to shut down threads that got heated. It won't work on here. No Debate is over, both on NACA and in the public sphere.

Absent of any new developments in the gender debate, I'll be giving the casual readers of the thread a rest from our endless tit for tat analysis of the Equality Act. They can read the quotes for themselves.

That's been your argument all along. Your fear of that part being true is bordering on the insane. And it shows in your posts.

Where should trans men go? If we use an earlier argument put forward by yourself, it should be the men's facilities. They made their choice, now they've to live with it, and men should just have to learn to accept them. Something you're arguing against when it's the other way round. Please explain why the two very different attitudes held by yourself?

Personal abuse, John 8:7.