Gender again. Sorry!

[AndyRM]

The extraordinary claim I referred to is that transwomen are women. There's no evidence that this is true, but you are telling me to respect it regardless of its veracity. You are demanding a level of compliance that you wouldn't expect people to give to religious claims or claims of a flat earth.

I wouldn't deadname someone because people change their name all the time and it affects no one. Pronouns are a choice, but I don't see that you can compell people to use them. It's not anybody job to validate other people's view of themselves.

Telling women that they must call men women if those men say so is rather disrespectful I think.

I'm not demanding anything. You can call transwomen men if you want, that's on you. Similarly I respect people's right to religious views or believe the earth is flat.

Likewise if someone says "these are my pronouns", what issue is it to use them?

 

[newfhouse]

Get real dude. You've read enough of this thread to know the history. If you don't agree with the arguments come out and say so rather than jumping on the 'liar' bandwagon and in doing so implying that Tool is an honest broker.
It's obvious to most people reading this thread that there is no amicable conclusion.
Trans women are women - disagree, you're a transphobe and must be attacked at every opportunity vs women (cis women if you insist) have legitimate concern about something that's a bit more than who goes to which toilet.
For what it's worth I agree with the latter - nobody's counting apart from the Tool.

Say what, Bro?

Look, I don’t know that there’s a definitive right and wrong in this argument, but I do think if it exists it won’t be found at the extremes.

My post highlighted what I saw as the very thing @AuroraSaab was complaining about. Why quote a post and then respond to something that wasn’t said? It’s no more helpful than posting abuse.

 

[multitool]

The extraordinary claim I referred to is that transwomen are women. There's no evidence that this is true, but you are telling me to respect it regardless of its veracity.

There is plenty of evidence. The law? Yes. General social use of language? Yes. Current biological definitions? No.

I expect you stand around 5g masts shouting at other protesters that it's not a 'mast' because it isn't on a boat

 

[multitool]

My post highlighted what I saw as the very thing @AuroraSaab was complaining about. Why quote a post and then respond to something that wasn’t said? It’s no more helpful than posting abuse.

It's called a straw man. Just one of the litany of dishonest debating tactics employed by Aurora, and noted by, at my count, now 7 other forummers.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not demanding anything. You can call transwomen men if you want, that's on you. Similarly I respect people's right to religious views or believe the earth is flat.

Likewise if someone says "these are my pronouns", what issue is it to use them?

Because using the pronouns which don't match a person's biological sex, for some people anyway, might be considered as consenting to something they don't believe in and which they consider fictitious. Using preferred pronouns is seen by some as an acknowledgement that everyone has a gender identity. Some of us don't believe this.

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/19/pronouns-compulsion-and-controversy/

This is the Indiana State University pronouns chart. The examples chosen at the top are quite telling.

Personally, I think it's up to individuals if they use someone's chosen pronouns or not. If you don't want to use faeself/verself/xemself, you can just use the person's name or say 'the customer' etc. You don't need to be rude and deliberately call them Sir instead of Madam. Seems a fair compromise.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There is plenty of evidence. The law? Yes. General social use of language? Yes. Current biological definitions? No.

I expect you stand around 5g masts shouting at other protesters that it's not a 'mast' because it isn't on a boat

The law that still allows transwomen to be excluded on the basis of their biological sex? Social use of language? Well yes it changes gradually over time but I'm not sure the general consensus is that 'Woman' also includes biological males just yet. You can't seriously be suggesting that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in the sex binary.

I expect you think hot dogs are dogs and clothes horses are horses. It's you who's advocating for beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence. You're the flat earther.

 

[multitool]

I see you havent understood my post, at all. Not even the bit about biological definitions.

 

[multitool]

If you don't want to use faeself/verself/xemself, you can just use the person's name or say 'the customer' etc.

Ever met anyone who has asked to be referred to as "faeself"?

No? Me neither.

In fact, I've only met four people in over half a century of life who have asked to be referred to by unconventional pronouns, and even then they were a bit apologetic about it.

I choose not to be a dick to people who aren't dicks. Your values may differ.

 

[monkers]

The law that still allows transwomen to be excluded on the basis of their biological sex? Social use of language? Well yes it changes gradually over time but I'm not sure the general consensus is that 'Woman' also includes biological males just yet. You can't seriously be suggesting that the vast majority of scientists don't believe in the sex binary.

I expect you think hot dogs are dogs and clothes horses are horses. It's you who's advocating for beliefs for which there is no scientific evidence. You're the flat earther.

Exceptional circumstances. All trans people, not just trans women, and only in exceptional circumstances. A person needing the use of a toilet is not an exceptional circumstance.

Claiming that the law permits trans women to excluded on the basis of their biological sex is a lie.

I have criticisms of the EHRC, however not even the revision of the guidelines change the provision of exceptional circumstances.

This is your invention and you keep repeating it despite efforts to make you understand the truth.

Not have you only used 'exceptional circumstances' to justify a blanket ban, you've also said that toilets and changing rooms are already segregated by biological sex. They are not, you've had the clear evidence provided by me, but you continue with your inventions.

You talk about Stonewall Law, that is an invention. There is no such thing. You might like Aurora's Law to be real, but all of this is a filament of your own illumination (malapropism intended - my own invention - but not yet law).

I started replying to this thread in good faith with explanations not from googled links but from the real experience of raising a trans child.

Your crime stats are an invention. While so many TERFs and GCs like to call trans women rapists and claim that crime stats prove this, it's fiction for three reasons:-
trans women do not have the physical capability, surgery and hormone regimes prevent it.
trans women do not have libido, or at least very reduced libido
responses to freedom of information requests do not confirm it.

I no longer feel the need to respect your opinion or feel any need to be polite to you. This you need to understand is because with each and every of your posts you demonise and dehumanise a group of people. I raised my niece as a daughter, she calls me 'Mum' - her choice.

Have you the first inkling of what it is for me to read your lies, your cruelty, your detachment from humanity? The lies and the other traits suggest that you have been recruited by the far right - a Poundshop fascist with no regard to the damage caused by the circulation of the hatred you speak.

 

[multitool]

^ This is the nub of it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Exceptional circumstances. All trans people, not just trans women, and only in exceptional circumstances. A person needing the use of a toilet is not an exceptional circumstance.

People of both sexes need privacy in toilets. It's possible to overcome the difficulties but you aren't interested in solutions, just in giving biological males access to all women's single sex spaces and services. You offer no solutions whatsoever. If transactivists put as much energy in to building trans specific services as they do trying to gain access to women's spaces, we would have solved half the issues by now.

Claiming that the law permits trans women to excluded on the basis of their biological sex is a lie. I have criticisms of the EHRC, however not even the revision of the guidelines change the provision of exceptional circumstances. This is your invention and you keep repeating it despite efforts to make you understand the truth.

It's not 'exceptional circumstances' in the Equality Act. The term is 'a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim'. Excluding biological male from womens toilets and changing rooms is considered a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (privacy, dignity, safety). Just as excluding biological women from men's single sex spaces is at certain times.

Not have you only used 'exceptional circumstances' to justify a blanket ban, you've also said that toilets and changing rooms are already segregated by biological sex. They are not, you've had the clear evidence provided by me, but you continue with your inventions.

Nope, you haven't proved that assertion.

You talk about Stonewall Law, that is an invention. There is no such thing. You might like Aurora's Law to be real, but all of this is a filament of your own illumination (malapropism intended - my own invention - but not yet law).

Stonewall have routinely tried to undermine the provisions of the Equality Act through their training schemes, and in fact their Index scheme rewards companies for doing so. Perhaps that's why an increasing number of institutions are withdrawing. Even one of its founders, Matthew Parrish, has called its stance 'extremist'.

Essex Uni followed their misleading advice (no paywall) and were taken to task.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/stonewalls-diversity-scheme-accused-of-being-unlawful/

While so many TERFs and GCs like to call trans women rapists and claim that crime stats prove this, it's fiction for three reasons:-
trans women do not have the physical capability, surgery and hormone regimes prevent it.

That seems a bold assertion. Not all transwomen have hrt or surgery. Some have neither. Not sure anyone of us are in a position to assess whether every transwoman has the ability to rape someone, though of course serious sexual assaults needn't include penetration.

trans women do not have libido, or at least very reduced libido

And yet there are plenty of cases of transwomen being charged with rape and sexual assault.

responses to freedom of information requests do not confirm it.

I no longer feel the need to respect your opinion or feel any need to be polite to you. This you need to understand is because with each and every of your posts you demonise and dehumanise a group of people. I raised my niece as a daughter, she calls me 'Mum' - her choice.

Have you the first inkling of what it is for me to read your lies, your cruelty, your detachment from humanity? The lies and the other traits suggest that you have been recruited by the far right - a Poundshop fascist with no regard to the damage caused by the circulation of the hatred you speak.

Your hyperbole and emotive special pleading is a bit tiresome. You do not give a toss about women. There is literally no situation in which you would not prioritise the feelings of biological men over women. Not one. Not prisons, not sports, not changing rooms, not same sex hospital wards, not women asking for a female carer for intimate care, not rape counselling groups.

Is there any situation or service in which women should be able to exclude biological males? Any at all?

Let's be absolutely clear where you stand when a disabled woman says she only wants her intimate washing to be done by a biological woman, or a girl only wants to be in a rape counselling group with other biological girls and women. And don't bother replying if you're going to say 'I don't know anything about disabled people or rape counselling' like you do with women's sports - that's just your way of evading having to admit that sometimes single sex spaces and services are a necessity.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

My post highlighted what I saw as the very thing @AuroraSaab was complaining about. Why quote a post and then respond to something that wasn’t said? It’s no more helpful than posting abuse.

Yet you are quite able to highlight what you see as a problem with AS's post whilst liking the disingenuous posts of other contributors and not questioning the abuse and garbage posted by the Tool.

 

[newfhouse]

Yet you are quite able to highlight what you see as a problem with AS's post whilst liking the disingenuous posts of other contributors and not questioning the abuse and garbage posted by the Tool.

I’d be interested to know which posts I have liked in this thread that you think are disingenuous.

 

[monkers]

People of both sexes need privacy in toilets. It's possible to overcome the difficulties but you aren't interested in solutions, just in giving biological males access to all women's single sex spaces and services. You offer no solutions whatsoever. If transactivists put as much energy in to building trans specific services as they do trying to gain access to women's spaces, we would have solved half the issues by now.

Because there isn't a real problem, just an invented one. In every toilet there is a private space behind a bolted door. Nobody has a legitimate reason to get naked on the outside of that bolted door. All we women do outside of that door, is handwashing, hair brushing, and touching up the lippy - none of which are 'private' or done with loss of dignity.

There's only one explanation for trying to keep trans women out and that's bigotry.

 

[monkers]

As for the rest of your nonsense output - just fark off. I've had enough of you demonising and dehumanising my family.