Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

How can you have sympathy for transwomen offenders but no sympathy for women prisoners?

NEWSFLASH: What makes you think women prisoners view trans women as a threat? I know loads of women. Probably more than you (because you are such a hate-filled human I've a suspicion you don't actually mix with many other humans) and literally none of the women I know EVER voice an opinion that TW are a danger to them. So, how about, instead of trying to represent ALL women as holding the same views as you, you just admit to representing the bunch of weirdo zealots you actually represent*

*view endorsed by my wife. Actual biological woman with a fanny. Will that do? Does it meet your stringent criteria?

 

[icowden]

because you are such a hate-filled human I've a suspicion you don't actually mix with many other humans) and literally none of the women I know EVER voice an opinion that TW are a danger to them.

Isn't that odd. It's almost as if, when women do speak up, they immediately get shouted down and called hate filled humans.
Go figure.

 

[icowden]

You get reamed every time you post, not least because your only supporter is icow, but mostly because at least 5 regular NACA posters have openly complained about your dishonesty.

I don't think you understand what dishonesty is. Presenting an opposing viewpoint and offering researched statistics isn't lying just because you have different research and disagree with a point.

If you disagree with what Aurora has posted, why not challenge it properly instead of being rude and insulting?

 

[icowden]

NEWSFLASH: What makes you think women prisoners view trans women as a threat? I know loads of women. Probably more than you (because you are such a hate-filled human I've a suspicion you don't actually mix with many other humans) and literally none of the women I know EVER voice an opinion that TW are a danger to them. So, how about, instead of trying to represent ALL women as holding the same views as you, you just admit to representing the bunch of weirdo zealots you actually represent*

*view endorsed by my wife. Actual biological woman with a fanny. Will that do? Does it meet your stringent criteria?

Ah - got this now. Because you know lots of women, your views are right whilst Aurora being a woman and knowing lots of other women is wrong. I'm glad we have that sorted.

Last time I checked there were several million people in the UK alone. I'm not sure a random poll of 20 or so of your close friends is going to hold much statistical water.

 

[multitool]

Three finger-stabby posts in reaction to one post of mine and you still managed to miss the entire point of it.

Only you, icow, only you.

Isn't that odd. It's almost as if, when women do speak up, they immediately get shouted down and called hate filled humans.
Go figure.

Yeah, thought I'd take a break from shouting down Monckers, who is herself shouting down Aurora, because that is what disagreeing with someone is when you don't have the same opinion as icow, isn't it, but it's acceptable if you have the correct genitalia.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Ok. You've proved that I did not say that I was quoting from the Equality Act. I did not even put the term in quote marks. That means that I was not referencing the term from anywhere at all..

If it doesn't say 'exceptional circumstances' in the Equality Act, it doesn't mean 'exceptional circumstances'. It means what it says.

Common Law sets precedent in the interpretation and implementation of statute until such time as statute is changed. To date that statute has not changed. Legal argument rests with the term 'exceptional circumstances'. A person needing the use of a toilet is not an exceptional circumstance.

Extracting the phrase 'exception circumstances' from a ruling about prisons doesn't mean that principle overules the Equality Act. I have no idea why you think it somehow does, especially when the government has made clear that exclusion is legal at times, whether it's by sex, race, disability or whatever characteristic.

Only a fool will think that going to the toilet is an exceptional circumstance and that each and every person can be assessed by risk on a case-by-case basis each time they have need. Only a fool will think that singling people out by a perception of what one unqualified person who volunteers to be a gatekeeper to toilets is a good idea.

It's the type of service being provided that is assessed case by case, not the people using the services. Would provision of separate toilets, as a general service, be considered a 'proportionate response to a legitimate aim'? The Equality Act says Yes. You're not deciding if each individual can use them or if each new set of toilets can be separated by sex.

Your argument rests on false narrative, lack of legal understanding, and self-justification of bigotry.

You aren't defending women's rights at all - you are seeking to justify your supposed right to be a bigot, only it doesn't wash with me.

And your endless reiteration of yourself as a legal expert doesn't wash with me.

 

[AuroraSaab]

NEWSFLASH: What makes you think women prisoners view trans women as a threat? I know loads of women. Probably more than you (because you are such a hate-filled human I've a suspicion you don't actually mix with many other humans) and literally none of the women I know EVER voice an opinion that TW are a danger to them.

'It doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to anyone' isn't a convincing argument for anything.

Funnily enough, women prisoners weren't consulted about having males in their jail. Perhaps we should take their views into account. Doesn't seem the idea is that popular though:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sc...prisoners-scotland-forced-shower-26863700.amp

So, how about, instead of trying to represent ALL women as holding the same views as you, you just admit to representing the bunch of weirdo zealots you actually represent*

*view endorsed by my wife. Actual biological woman with a fanny. Will that do? Does it meet your stringent criteria?

Easy to have no sympathy or even interest in the importance of single sex services like prisons, rape crisis services, having same sex carers, when you will probably never need them. Neither your wife, nor you, can consent on behalf of other women to having male bodied people in their single sex spaces and services.

Again though, 'My wife doesn't care, so why should anybody else' isn't really a reasonable basis to form legislation that affects others.

Happy to be on the side of 'weirdo zealots' like Martina Navratilova, criminology professor Jo Phoenix, founder of Stonewall Simon Fanshawe, and many other experts and well informed individuals who have a knowledgeable basis for their opinions.

 

[mudsticks]

Isn't that odd. It's almost as if, when women do speak up, they immediately get shouted down and called hate filled humans.
Go figure.

Yup or be on the receiving end of any number of other gender based slurs which imply that women are stupid, or irrational, or somehow intellectually lacking as a class of people.

It's all fine so long as we're agreeing, we're allowed to have opinions thoughts and feelings then.

Any deviation from the line however and we're making trouble.

Sadly women, often unconsciously (or maybe even consciously?!) do it to other women too, such are the consequences of having grown up in a patriachal society with attitudes and language that promotes and maintains inequality between genders.

Internalised misogyny is a thing that many women struggle with - or in many cases don't even recognise they're carrying around - its so baked into our society.

And derogatory language, against one's own gender, is a very powerful tool of that oppression.

Transwomen are transitioning into a gender that is still seen, and spoken about as 'less than' by so very many people .

They're going to be subject to the same treatment and language as women, only possibly more so as some will see them as having deliberately chosen to 'downgrade' their status, so therefore they are particularly fair game.

I don't agree with everything that @AuroraSaab says about every aspect of this issue, but she's done commendably well at not rising to the barrage of insults thrown at her.

There are difficult issues raised by this subject, and talking about them doesn't immediately turn you into a frothing hate filled bigoted transphobe.

 

[mudsticks]

Ha, how apposite - according to this forum I've now somehow become a 'squire'

"a man of high social standing who owns and lives on an estate in a rural area, especially the chief landowner in such an area"

🙄

 

[multitool]

'It doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to anyone' isn't a convincing argument for anything.

Funnily enough, women prisoners weren't consulted about having males in their jail. Perhaps we should take their views into account. Doesn't seem the idea is that popular though:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sc...prisoners-scotland-forced-shower-26863700.amp



Easy to have no sympathy or even interest in the importance of single sex services like prisons, rape crisis services, having same sex carers, when you will probably never need them. Neither your wife, nor you, can consent on behalf of other women to having male bodied people in their single sex spaces and services.

Again though, 'My wife doesn't care, so why should anybody else' isn't really a reasonable basis to form legislation that affects others.

Happy to be on the side of 'weirdo zealots' like Martina Navratilova, criminology professor Jo Phoenix, founder of Stonewall Simon Fanshawe, and many other experts and well informed individuals who have a knowledgeable basis for their opinions.

Ah, another straw man.

 

[monkers]

Yup or be on the receiving end of any number of other gender based slurs which imply that women are stupid, or irrational, or somehow intellectually lacking as a class of people.

It's all fine so long as we're agreeing, we're allowed to have opinions thoughts and feelings then.

Any deviation from the line however and we're making trouble.

Sadly women, often unconsciously (or maybe even consciously?!) do it to other women too, such are the consequences of having grown up in a patriachal society with attitudes and language that promotes and maintains inequality between genders.

Internalised misogyny is a thing that many women struggle with - or in many cases don't even recognise they're carrying around - its so baked into our society.

And derogatory language, against one's own gender, is a very powerful tool of that oppression.

Transwomen are transitioning into a gender that is still seen, and spoken about as 'less than' by so very many people .

They're going to be subject to the same treatment and language as women, only possibly more so as some will see them as having deliberately chosen to 'downgrade' their status, so therefore they are particularly fair game.

I don't agree with everything that @AuroraSaab says about every aspect of this issue, but she's done commendably well at not rising to the barrage of insults thrown at her.

There are difficult issues raised by this subject, and talking about them doesn't immediately turn you into a frothing hate filled bigoted transphobe.

Speaking for myself - this is not gender-based or sex-based aggression.

Aurora is using her lies to insult a member of my family. It doesn't matter who she is, what sex, what gender, whatever any personal characteristic is, but when one of member of my family is being targeted, I'm going to call that person out.

So let's have no more of this Aurora is entitled to speak because she is a woman. Women can be aggressive, violent, be arsonists, be murderers. The women's prisons that Aurora claims to be defending exist because women are not these perfect innocent creatures that is being pretended.

Why should this woman (me) be prevented from speaking up? Is it because other I won't wheesh to the feminists view that trans women are not women.

A reminder - the lies that Aurora speaks on here are the same lies that are propagating violence against trans people including a member of my family. It needs to be brought to an end.

I've been polite to everyone else. I am not going to be polite to Aurora because she is a woman, or because of any other characteristic.

 

[multitool]

I'm still giggling that I can voice identical views as you, Monckers, but when I say them it's "misogyny", and I'm "shutting down debate" and "shouting women down", but when you voice them....no accusation of misogyny.

Weird that. Almost as if the accusation of misogyny is itself a cheap trick to try and shout someone down.

A reminder - the lies that Aurora speaks on here are the same lies that are propagating violence against trans people including a member of my family. It needs to be brought to an end.

I've been polite to everyone else. I am not going to be polite to Aurora because she is a woman, or because of any other characteristic.

Exactly this.

 

[monkers]

Ok. You've proved that I did not say that I was quoting from the Equality Act. I did not even put the term in quote marks. That means that I was not referencing the term from anywhere at all..

If it doesn't say 'exceptional circumstances' in the Equality Act, it doesn't mean 'exceptional circumstances'. It means what it says.

Common Law sets precedent in the interpretation and implementation of statute until such time as statute is changed. To date that statute has not changed. Legal argument rests with the term 'exceptional circumstances'. A person needing the use of a toilet is not an exceptional circumstance.

Extracting the phrase 'exception circumstances' from a ruling about prisons doesn't mean that principle overules the Equality Act. I have no idea why you think it somehow does, especially when the government has made clear that exclusion is legal at times, whether it's by sex, race, disability or whatever characteristic.



This is why I call you 'an idiot'. Each time you post, you don't seem to understand, and even when legal text is placed before your eyes, you pretend it doesn't exist because it just doesn't fit with your twisted narrative.

'Exceptional circumstances' in the context of that ruling is now binding on every court at or below the level of the judge who ruled it.

In the case I quoted from, that was the High Court. It is now law applied to every judge and every court up to the High Court. It can be challenged, but it can not be ignored. That is the way in which UK law and the UK legal system functions. If it didn't then Maya Forstater could not have obtained leave to appeal for her second case.

You are so ignorant, and such a liar, because you are so very bigoted. You'll twist everything, including rulings of that court to suit your narrative.

Common law and statute​

The common law is the law declared by judges, derived from custom and precedent. It originated with the legal reforms of King Henry II in the 12th century and was called “common” because it applied equally across the whole country. The doctrine of binding precedent, whereby courts follow and apply the principles declared in previous cases decided by more senior courts, known as “courts of record”, is also known by the Latin expression “stare decisis”.

The common law includes both substantive rules, such as the offence of murder, and procedural ones, such as court procedure rules derived from the inherent jurisdiction of the court.

Common law rules may be superseded or replaced by legislation, which is said to “trump” or take precedence over the common law. Offences of theft, for example, based on the old common law offence of larceny, are now governed by the Theft Acts 1968, 1978 etc; and the original penalties for murder (though not the offence itself) were replaced by statutes such as the Homicide Act 1957.

There is a limit to the extent to which common law judges, however creative or “activist”, can reform an out-of-date law, particularly if it derives from a statute. In such circumstances, only Parliament can change the law. The need for such a change often follows a period of research and consultation by the Law Commission, which was set up to review and propose reform to old or inadequate laws.

Even murder is derived from Common Law.

Until parliament, a higher court or a higher judge over rules Lord Justice Holroyd, that ruling based on his assertion that statute shall be taken to mean under 'exceptional circumstances', it is the law of the land.

Nothing you can say on this forum will change that. If you can show that Lord Justice Holroyd's ruling has been over-ruled by parliament or a superior court, then fair play and I will acknowledge it. Until then don't try to fool people that your understanding of law is greater - it most clearly and evidently is not.

'Exceptional circumstances' remains the law until you bring evidence to the contrary. 'Aurora's Law' is not a thing.

 

[mudsticks]

Speaking for myself - this is not gender-based or sex-based aggression.

Aurora is using her lies to insult a member of my family. It doesn't matter who she is, what sex, what gender, whatever any personal characteristic is, but when one of member of my family is being targeted, I'm going to call that person out.

So let's have no more of this Aurora is entitled to speak because she is a woman. Women can be aggressive, violent, be arsonists, be murderers. The women's prisons that Aurora claims to be defending exist because women are not these perfect innocent creatures that is being pretended.

Why should this woman (me) be prevented from speaking up? Is it because other I won't wheesh to the feminists view that trans women are not women.

A reminder - the lies that Aurora speaks on here are the same lies that are propagating violence against trans people including a member of my family. It needs to be brought to an end.

I've been polite to everyone else. I am not going to be polite to Aurora because she is a woman, or because of any other characteristic.

I haven't seen the post where @AuroraSaab insulted, or targeted a member of your family.

I don't see either where anyone is preventing you from speaking.

Nowhere have I (or anyone else) asserted that women can't do violence either - or are perfect innocent creatures* - that's a straw man if ever I saw one. where have I, or anyone else said that.?

You accuse others of 'lying' and then try to make out that people have said things that they've not said

I can totally see how most of the time the 'transrights issue' is being used as a divisive wedge to distract from other matters.

But that doesn't mean that no one can ever raise legitimate concerns in a respectful manner.

*But the statistics still show that it is overwhelmingly women who have violence done to them by male bodied people, it is women who are oppressed as a class by our still patriachal society.

Women have good reason to prefer, or rather need some spaces from which male bodied people are excluded.

Particularly those very many women who have been traumatised / abused by male bodied people.


Yes it's the same patriachal society that oppresses transpeople, that oppresses gay people and many others who don't 'conform' - but pointing out where certain rights of certain oppressed groups come into conflict with others, doesn't immediately make one into an oppressive bigot.

 

[monkers]

I'm still giggling that I can voice identical views as you, Monckers, but when I say them it's "misogyny", and I'm "shutting down debate" and "shouting women down", but when you voice them....no accusation of misogyny.

Weird that. Almost as if the accusation of misogyny is itself a cheap trick to try and shout someone down.



Exactly this.

Well quite. Misogyny is treating all women as if their view is inherently inferior to that of a man. A misogynist will tend to treat all women in that way.

But when a woman is as wrong as Aurora, and she is not going to stop from repeating those lies, then it should be a matter for anyone to say so 'because she is a woman'.

I'm not acceding to the view that a man can not be critical of the views of a woman because it's misogyny - it isn't.

Nobody can say Aurora has not been heard, she has been heard, more than adequately. What she says is ignorant, wrong and is harmful. Anyone who believes her 'facts' are wrong ought be free to say so. Anyone who believes that her bigotry is harmful ought be free to say so.