Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

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.

I try to be civil to you, Classic, even when you are rather rude.

And if the trans women had been raped, would you deny her the same rights as any other person in that position?

No. Why would I? If trans people feel the need for services only for trans people they should have them. There are some services and spaces that quite rightly cater only for trans people. Women deserve the same, as do other groups.

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.

Women are also people. Their specific needs should not be ignored either.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Remember I'm not taking sides or offering you an opinion. I'm stating facts about the law.

You are offering your interpretation of the Equality Act, which the examples in it plainly contradict. Therefore it's your opinion.

Everything else in your post is repetitive white noise.

 

[AuroraSaab]

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?

I think people should use the facilities appropriate to their sex. I didn't say transmen should use male toilets or changing rooms. I said that it would be up to men to decide if they were happy sharing their spaces with transmen. I can't consent to that on behalf of men. And you can't consent on behalf of women as to who they allow in their single sex spaces and services.

If there were a transman demanding to play in what was currently an all male rugby league, should the males playing against them - tackling them and having to share showers - have any say in the matter? Lots of men wouldn't feel comfortable placing a heavy tackle on a female body, nor sharing showers with them. Should the men have no say in the matter? I think they should. I think they should have the right to say 'No'. You apparently want to deny women the same right.

 

[classic33]

I try to be civil to you, Classic, even when you are rather rude.

No. Why would I? If trans people feel the need for services only for trans people they should have them. There are some services and spaces that quite rightly cater only for trans people. Women deserve the same, as do other groups.

Women are also people. Their specific needs should not be ignored either.

Having fought discrimination my entire life, I'm more than inclined to give as good as is given. Maybe worth thinking about that before you next accuse me of doing something.

I tend to be blunt and to the point, which not everyone likes.

 

[classic33]

I think people should use the facilities appropriate to their sex. I didn't say transmen should use male toilets or changing rooms. I said that it would be up to men to decide if they were happy sharing their spaces with transmen. I can't consent to that on behalf of men. And you can't consent on behalf of women as to who they allow in their single sex spaces and services.

You have said we'd have no problems letting trans men use the same facilities, and single sex spaces. More than once.
Matthew 7:7-8.

 

[monkers]

You are offering your interpretation of the Equality Act, which the examples in it plainly contradict. Therefore it's your opinion.

Everything else in your post is repetitive white noise.

Then instead of keep saying this, which I might point out contains a slur despite whatever you say, place the two parts of the act that you consider to be in contention, and then say why they are in contention.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've given you the links several times. I've given you screenshots. You simply insist they don't say what they seem to very clearly say. There's no point going over it another hundred times.

You have said we'd have no problems letting trans men use the same facilities, and single sex spaces. More than once.
Matthew 7:7-8.

No, I've said that decision should be up to men.

 

[classic33]

I've given you the links several times. I've given you screenshots. You simply insist they don't say what they seem to very clearly say. There's no point going over it another hundred times.

No, I've said that decision should be up to men.

That isn't what you've said.
Is this poor memory or more lying from you?

 

[monkers]

I've given you the links several times. I've given you screenshots. You simply insist they don't say what they seem to very clearly say. There's no point going over it another hundred times.

No, I've said that decision should be up to men.

lol

Each time you post you prove that you are wrong.

Still it has been an entertainment, rather than an education.

You still haven't figured that the source of human rights is the Convention Rights, and that the EqA is the implementation of just one convention - the right not to be discriminated against.

Convention rights spell out the opposite to your preaching.

If it were the case that public toilets were provided for men and women, but that women's toilets had become the preserve of trans women in domestic law, then you'd hear no argument from me. But that is clearly not the case. It is the case to satisfy Convention Law that trans women can go where the women go, and trans men can go where the men go. The Equality Act provides that there are permissible provisions for exclusion under exceptional circumstance, but only then given special consideration, and as a means to justify the decision.

Any segregation is not ordinarily along biological lines, but along self-identified gender. It is not the 2004 Act that changed this, or the 2010 Act. It is cemented way back when, at the time of the establishment of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I understand that you don't like it this way. I understand and accept that you say this makes it uncomfortable. However this is the only basis of your argument which fails the test of legality. It is a permissible belief, and you are free to express it, but not at the expense of assaulting the dignity of trans people, who are exercising their human rights under the conventions.

To exclude trans people from their human rights is by a default position - unlawful since it is defined in law as 'direct discrimination'.

ARTICLE 14 Prohibition of discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

Being as you can't furnish the evidence to your claims this becomes the end of that discussion.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The Equality Act provides that there are permissible provisions for exclusion under exceptional circumstance, but only then given special consideration, and as a means to justify the decision.

Which is what I've said - 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim'.

Any segregation is not ordinarily along biological lines, but along self-identified gender. It is not the 2004 Act that changed this, or the 2010 Act. It is cemented way back when, at the time of the establishment of the European Convention on Human Rights.

We've had separate services and facilities for men and women long before the ECHR. 200 years for prisons. Prisoners weren't separated based on gender identity in 1723.

It is a permissible belief, and you are free to express it, but not at the expense of assaulting the dignity of trans people, who are exercising their human rights under the conventions.

It doesn't assault anybody's dignity to tell them they can't have everything they want. This is how it works in a democracy. Trans activists have campaigned to change UK law and people are showing resistance. You don't seem to care much for the dignity of women and girls.

To exclude trans people from their human rights is by a default position - unlawful since it is defined in law as 'direct discrimination'.

It's not a human right for, for example, men to undress next to women and girls. Funny how the whole of Europe has had this direct discrimination for a hundred years, long before the European Convention, and most are maintaining it.

You have to wonder why Stonewall haven't just brought a case to the ECHR to get all this cleared up if it's so obvious...

 

[classic33]

Which is what I've said - 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim'.

We've had separate services and facilities for men and women long before the ECHR. 200 years for prisons. Prisoners weren't separated based on gender identity in 1723.

It doesn't assault anybody's dignity to tell them they can't have everything they want. This is how it works in a democracy. Trans activists have campaigned to change UK law and people are showing resistance. You don't seem to care much for the dignity of women and girls.


It's not a human right for, for example, men to undress next to women and girls. Funny how the whole of Europe has had this direct discrimination for a hundred years, long before the European Convention, and most are maintaining it.

You have to wonder why Stonewall haven't just brought a case to the ECHR to get all this cleared up if it's so obvious...

You certain about the year?

 

[classic33]

Which is what I've said - 'proportionate means to a legitimate aim'.

We've had separate services and facilities for men and women long before the ECHR. 200 years for prisons. Prisoners weren't separated based on gender identity in 1723.

It doesn't assault anybody's dignity to tell them they can't have everything they want. This is how it works in a democracy. Trans activists have campaigned to change UK law and people are showing resistance. You don't seem to care much for the dignity of women and girls.


It's not a human right for, for example, men to undress next to women and girls. Funny how the whole of Europe has had this direct discrimination for a hundred years, long before the European Convention, and most are maintaining it.

You have to wonder why Stonewall haven't just brought a case to the ECHR to get all this cleared up if it's so obvious...

Rather than edit the previous post, leaves it open to what else was changed.

You can't have what you want.

 

[monkers]

You don't seem to care much for the dignity of women and girls.

I don't remember how many times you've levelled this insult at me. It isn't a low level insult either.

I care for the dignity of all people equally - that is what the law requires, and it's the person I am. I don't favour the dignity of women over men, or men over women, not girls over boys, not boys over girls, not people from one nation or culture over another, not people of one sexual orientation over another, not people of one social status over another whether that be by way of social class, gender reassignment or any other. For you it is one-sided.

I am not the bigot here. And as pointed out, any sentence used by you with the word 'seem' in it show that this opinion is not arrived at by reason, rational thinking, logic or critical thinking, and goes on to convey a slur.

So I'll ask again, can you provide some analysis of how the rights of women and trans women are in contest in the European Convention Law to which we are bound. Any cases from the ECtHR to seal the deal? Any cases from the ECJ brought on Convention Rights.

The truth is that you can't. So you resort to absolute lies, trash talk on trans women, and these nasty slurs against people who call you out on your behaviour, while you are all the time pretending to be the victim.

The claims are yours, so in debating etiquette it is your responsibility to bring evidence. If you can not, it is your responsibility to recognise your error and withdraw the remarks.

I'm sitting here with confidence that you can not substantiate what you claim, but I'm content to wait longer.

You can start by withdrawing the repeated nasty slur that I don't care about the rights of women and girls. This is not a slight, it is a character attack, and not warranted.

 

[icowden]

You have said we'd have no problems letting trans men use the same facilities, and single sex spaces. More than once.

There's a bit of a mismatch between what the law says, what people are used to, and what people think should happen. Personally I think the whole toilet thing is a bit of a pointless sideshow.

But then, I am male. Most men, I would think, would not have an issue with a trans man using the gents, nor for that matter a woman. We tend to use it to go for a quick wee and nothing else.

I don't use the ladies but my observation based on family, friends and popular culture is that the ladies room is treated somewhat differently. Ladies often go in groups, chat etc. A conversation in the gents is frankly weird and usually when a bloke says he's off to the gents and you also need the gents you tend to wait for 5 minutes rather than set off together.

That said, any toilet that is just cubicles is just a toilet. Urinals mean that there is a chance that you might see a willy but that's about it. It's also notable that the British do seem to have a lot of hang ups about nudity when compared to our European cousins. Interestingly the Americans are even more hung up about nudity but I'd never seen a communal toilet for both genders until Ally McBeal came on the TV.

 

[classic33]

There's a bit of a mismatch between what the law says, what people are used to, and what people think should happen. Personally I think the whole toilet thing is a bit of a pointless sideshow.

But then, I am male. Most men, I would think, would not have an issue with a trans man using the gents, nor for that matter a woman. We tend to use it to go for a quick wee and nothing else.

I don't use the ladies but my observation based on family, friends and popular culture is that the ladies room is treated somewhat differently. Ladies often go in groups, chat etc. A conversation in the gents is frankly weird and usually when a bloke says he's off to the gents and you also need the gents you tend to wait for 5 minutes rather than set off together.

That said, any toilet that is just cubicles is just a toilet. Urinals mean that there is a chance that you might see a willy but that's about it. It's also notable that the British do seem to have a lot of hang ups about nudity when compared to our European cousins. Interestingly the Americans are even more hung up about nudity but I'd never seen a communal toilet for both genders until Ally McBeal came on the TV.

And a bigger mismatch in what someone else feels, and says more than once, we should be able to tolerate. Given that they've said they "can't consent to that on behalf of men".