newfhouse
pleb
I have done no such thing.
I have said no such thing.
I have suggested no such thing.
I responded to your assertion, quoted again here. The rest is entirely in your head.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I responded to your assertion, quoted again here. The rest is entirely in your head.
monkers
Legendary Member
When you said this it was rather good as a summary. It spoke the truth, and suits feminists and trans people without detriment to either side.
Why not just go with this, and leave the legacy of other statements behind?
AuroraSaab
Squire
Black people also have equality in law so by your logic they should sit down too now because that fight is over. That BLM stuff was unnecessary I guess.
Women don't have equality with men. They have equality in law in the UK. They are still oppressed by the patriarchal system. They are not equally free to safely walk through a park at night in the dark. They still face structural inequality in careers and social expectations, like caring for children and elderly parents.
monkers
Legendary Member
The first part is just nonsense. There is no suggestion that I think like that at all. I can't think what possessed you to type it. Please don't return to just lying about your opponents to their face. It'll never end well and means that people can't see you as credible. The situation for BAME people is similar as it is to women.
The second part is pretty much as I had just said. The fight for the rights of equality, to be free from discrimination based on one's sex, or the perception of one's sex is more or less over - they are written down in statute. The fight for their implementation is not - because the Tories dislike ordinary citizens having rights, so they do not implement them. They have a stated intention to repeal our rights.
monkers
Legendary Member
I admit I've chopped the above but not for point scoring.
You're right women are not equally free to safely walk the street at night, because the most frequent victims are young men.
You're right again there is structural inequality - that's a political failure of the government to implement the law.
You're right again about caring, women do most of the caring while men do most of the work. The perspective here is which do you value most, caring or work? I'll leave you to argue with yourself about the feminist perspective on that one. I'll leave you with an opinion though, it only matters if you value one over the other, or if you've allowed yourself to be in a relationship with someone who is resistant to women's rights. (rated harsh even by me).
But take heart, because despite the government, that situation is improving.
http://www.fatherhoodinstitute.org/2023/stay-at-home-dads-rise-by-a-third-since-pre-pandemic/#:~:text=The data shows that one,the same period in 2019.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
You were responding to a discussion about Stock, Rowling, Bailey etc., and the second part of the quote you were replying to referenced masked men turning up to Stock's place of work. That's why I assumed you were talking about UK gender critical feminists thinking trans people should be put to death. That kind of language has never been a part of mainstream feminist discourse in the UK.
Apologies if this is not who you meant; your reply wasn't clear.
Who are the UK women who are stopping trans people meeting together?
AuroraSaab
Squire
The comparison to the black community is relevant. You've said that women have equal rights, and what gender critical women are asking for is privileges. If black people also have equal rights, aren't they also asking for privileges when they ask to be able to meet without whites present? It wouldn't be a right for a group of students to form say a Black Students Society then? It would be a privilege and presumably one you think shouldn't be granted. Is that a correct reading of your view? Special interest groups should, in your opinion, have no right to meet together and exclude those who are not in that group?
You can't change attitudes just with laws. Much as I dislike the Tories they are not responsible for the patriarchy. It existed under a Labour government and exists in socialist countries. Feminism is about seeking liberation not just equality.
monkers
Legendary Member
@AuroraSaab
I think you've gone nuts.
Again you've made all kinds of farkwitted assumptions about what I might think about something else entirely and used that as a basis to attack my character.
You are very much a bad faith actor.
Just like I said in my first post, there are groups of women attacking other women for no good reason. They have made trans people the battleground with spurious arguments.
I have proved the case that humans have equal rights. Women's rights are equal with men with some extra bits covering stuff like pregnancy / maternity. Even fathers have the right to time off work when a new born arrives.
Now you are banging on about the patriarchy. Why? It must be because you've lost the argument about rights because you've learnt stuff.
Yesterday you accidentally did a little critical thinking and even wrote the reasoning contained in my first post as the summary of trans rights that I wrote some 2500 posts ago.
That was a eureka moment, and when I agreed with you, what did you do? You got angry because I agreed with you. This is nuts.
Women have the rights they need, but as we are increasingly finding out, the 'system' continues to work against certain groups, women, BAME people, and the LGBTiQ community. They win by dividing communities along their own lines of prejudice. You are part of this, you've become complicit; you are the one working with the patriarchy. You are helping them. You have become the oppressor. You are the one of those putting boots on necks acting for oppressors. I've been the one fighting it. What a little fool you are.
I think you've gone nuts.
Again you've made all kinds of farkwitted assumptions about what I might think about something else entirely and used that as a basis to attack my character.
You are very much a bad faith actor.
Just like I said in my first post, there are groups of women attacking other women for no good reason. They have made trans people the battleground with spurious arguments.
I have proved the case that humans have equal rights. Women's rights are equal with men with some extra bits covering stuff like pregnancy / maternity. Even fathers have the right to time off work when a new born arrives.
Now you are banging on about the patriarchy. Why? It must be because you've lost the argument about rights because you've learnt stuff.
Yesterday you accidentally did a little critical thinking and even wrote the reasoning contained in my first post as the summary of trans rights that I wrote some 2500 posts ago.
That was a eureka moment, and when I agreed with you, what did you do? You got angry because I agreed with you. This is nuts.
Women have the rights they need, but as we are increasingly finding out, the 'system' continues to work against certain groups, women, BAME people, and the LGBTiQ community. They win by dividing communities along their own lines of prejudice. You are part of this, you've become complicit; you are the one working with the patriarchy. You are helping them. You have become the oppressor. You are the one of those putting boots on necks acting for oppressors. I've been the one fighting it. What a little fool you are.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
That's an extremely long winded way of avoiding the question.
You've said that women don't have a right to single sex spaces and services. That seeking these things is asking for privileges not rights.
The same legislation that gives women their access to single sex spaces gives other groups their right to exclude too. Does your view apply to them too? It's easy enough to answer.
You've said that women don't have a right to single sex spaces and services. That seeking these things is asking for privileges not rights.
The same legislation that gives women their access to single sex spaces gives other groups their right to exclude too. Does your view apply to them too? It's easy enough to answer.
monkers
Legendary Member
That's just bollocks. You've claimed that women have hard won sex-based rights under the Equality Act. I said 'show me'. You couldn't. Then you conceded that there are no such women's sex-based rights under the Equality Act.
What I've said is that neither men or women have a hard won sex-based rights under the Equality Act, therefore it is not discrimination under the act. You do understand that is the purpose of the act don't you? It is cements convention law so that nobody is treated less favourably.
If you can't find it in law, then you can't claim that it exists. This is not me taking something away from anyone. There is law about toilet arrangements under different acts, but not under equality law. There is law under current and forthcoming building regulations. There are obligations on employers to provide single-sex spaces for toilets.
In particular you've claimed that public toilets are segregated by biological sex by law - they aren't. As I explained, public spaces can not be defined as private spaces - it's so obvious, it's staring you in the face. You are entitled to privacy in any loo you visit, but only for that stuff you do behind a bolted door. Communal areas are not covered in law and you just don't have the right to remove people from them - no matter what you say, or whatever twisted narrative you generate to claim it. So if a chap walks into the communal part of a women's toilet to wash his hands, you have not right to stop him - that Aurora is discrimination, and what the law prevents. I get that you don't like it, but that is not an example of a 'hard won sex-based right under the Equality Act'. This is you inventing stuff. So if you want a law that prevents that, you'll have to campaign for that.
That's the thing about UK law. It is a negative rights system. This means that anyone can do anything unless it is expressly forbidden under sovereign law. There is nothing in law to prevent anyone from walking into any public toilet to wash their hands - it's an innocent act. The law forbids other behaviours under an array of acts to prevent physical or sexual assault etc.
As soon as you discriminate against any person or group of people based on real or perceived protected characteristic, then it is you who is breaking the law. Women (including feminists like me) fought for equality under the law - that's what the law has provided. The law provided freedom from discrimination for all people with any of the protected characteristics - gender reassignment is one of them.
Can't you see the irony? You are claiming that you have the freedom to discriminate against individuals and a whole group using our laws that specifically make discrimination unlawful. How will any judge in the law see that and support your views?
Your convention rights are that you have the right to speak truth to power, freedom of assembly, freedom to protest peacefully, You should be able to use these rights to campaign, but as I keep telling you these fundamental convention rights are under attack from an abusive government.
Wise up.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
I've said the Equality Act allows exclusion when it's proportionate and has a legitimate aim. It's a right of service providers under the Act. Other groups can do the same. So yes, discrimination in certain circumstances is allowed.
The service provider can exclude him. The Equality Act is not about individuals rights to exclude. It would not be discrimination to exclude him because in the situation - toilets - exclusion would be proportionate.
If you were correct we would have seen hundreds of cases for discrimination being brought. You can't seriously be suggesting that a judge would side with a man who claimed he was being discriminated against by not being allowed in the women's changing room.
As it's the same legislation that allows exclusion in sport in the UK, it seems odd that we've seen increasing numbers of sports organisations banning men from the women's category here. Obviously the £££££'s they spent with consultants would have been better invested taking their legal advice from your hefty prose on Cycle Chat.
I'll presume you aren't going to answer the question as to whether other groups excluding people in certain circumstances is also 'seeking privileges', but feel free to come back to it when you've decided.
monkers
Legendary Member
That is not in dispute. It is not the case the any exclusion can be a blanket ban though, such as banning all trans women from all facilities. It applies only in exception circumstances, must be carefully considered and justifiable.
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
monkers
Legendary Member
You had been discussing women's toilets. That is the point I have addressed. You've shifted the goalposts (again). A woman's changing room is the space beyond the barrier provided for privacy. Just like in a toilet, it is the door (or maybe a curtain) that separates the area. That is why a trans woman is just as entitled as a cis woman to use the changing rooms. I've seen women take their husbands in to a women's changing room to help them with a zip or whatever. I have no problem with that. All that is needed is a little pragmatism and not stereotyping people with a protected characteristic as being a pervert or whatever.
If you were arguing that a judge would side with a man who just opens doors or curtains just to stand and look , then the law deals with that as voyeurism, not as discrimination.
