Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Trans women with a GRC are legally female.

For most legal purposes they can be treated as women if they have a GRC. They are not actually women though, even with a GRC. Unless of course you think 'woman' is simply a feeling in someone's head rather than a material physical reality.

In practice trans women do no harm to women, do not conflict with the rights of women.

Except in areas like pushing for access to women's single sex spaces and services. And being in women's prisons. And taking awards, scholarships, places etc. meant for women. And having male crimes attributed to females in the crime stats. And changing the language women use to describe themselves. And displacing women and girls in sports.

No, not harming women at girls at all.

He's clearly a bell end. As a teacher he is supposed to be encouraging his pupils to achieve as much as they can. That might just involve parking some of his beliefs at home.

Yep. He could have simply avoided using gendered terms if he felt it compromised his own beliefs.

 

[classic33]

For most legal purposes they can be treated as women if they have a GRC. They are not actually women though, even with a GRC. Unless of course you think 'woman' is simply a feeling in someone's head rather than a material physical reality.


Except in areas like pushing for access to women's single sex spaces and services. And being in women's prisons. And taking awards, scholarships, places etc. meant for women. And having male crimes attributed to females in the crime stats. And changing the language women use to describe themselves. And displacing women and girls in sports.

No, not harming women at girls at all.




Yep. He could have simply avoided using gendered terms if he felt it compromised his own beliefs.

And his views on Mohammed being a false prophet wouldn't have been comprised had he not used gendered terms?

Still trying to work out what it is that frightens you about this subject. You're hiding behind a load of crap, which, often when read in full, gives a different viewpoint to what you thought.

You still following the court reports about trans people?

 

[matticus]

I think what you're saying is that you're happy to use abusive & inflammatory language towards a small group of people who already suffer a huge amount of abuse.

It's the ABUSE that should be cracked down on; not the use of scientifically correct language.

I very much doubt that iCowden or Aurora approve of abuse - verbal or physical. And to save you asking, *I* don't either ...

 

[Milzy]

Some of todays liberal views are awfully frightening. I used to go to a night club in Leeds and it had unisex toilets. Everyone accepted that as the case and so it worked well. People who didn’t like it probably went to a different night club. This was early 2000’s and I’m sure it’s the same now albeit revamped over the years.

 

[monkers]

For most legal purposes they can be treated as women if they have a GRC. They are not actually women though, even with a GRC. Unless of course you think 'woman' is simply a feeling in someone's head rather than a material physical reality.

This is exactly why a call you n 'idiot'.

Trans women with a GRC are legally female, and are women. This has been UK law for some 19 years and been in practice since the first GRCs were issued 17 years ago.

There is no form of words that can change that no matter how you try.

As for your last part, what I think is as irrelevant as what you think. What matters is what parliament intended in 2003 when they passed the law.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And his views on Mohammed being a false prophet wouldn't have been comprised had he not used gendered terms?

This is what I mean when I say I have no idea what you are on about half the time.

Still trying to work out what it is that frightens you about this subject. You're hiding behind a load of crap, which, often when read in full, gives a different viewpoint to what you thought.

I'm still trying to work out why you think males should be in female spaces.

You still following the court reports about trans people?

I'm still noting when a man comits a crime and claims he's a woman, yes. It's relevant to the public discussion about self ID, womens prisons, and accurate recording of crime stats.

Are you still trying to prove women are just as bad as men when it comes to sex offences? How's that going?

 

[AuroraSaab]

This is exactly why a call you n 'idiot'.

Trans women with a GRC are legally female, and are women. This has been UK law for some 19 years and been in practice since the first GRCs were issued 17 years ago.

There is no form of words that can change that no matter how you try.

As for your last part, what I think is as irrelevant as what you think. What matters is what parliament intended in 2003 when they passed the law.

And yet they can still be excluded from women's single sex services and spaces under the Equality Act. Being legally treated as a woman for some purposes in UK law does not make you a woman. It makes you someone who is legally treated as though you were a woman for some purposes in UK law. That's all.

 

[Bromptonaut]

And yet they can still be excluded from women's single sex services and spaces under the Equality Act. Being legally treated as a woman for some purposes in UK law does not make you a woman. It makes you someone who is legally treated as though you were a woman for some purposes in UK law. That's all.

I think you've got that the wrong way around. It might be possible to exclude them, GRC notwithstanding, from women's single sex spaces but doing so would need to be a proportionate means to a legitimate end. Intimate care or perhaps rape counselling might just be such a thing but it won't keep them out of changing areas or toilets.

The article you posted last week about the For Women Scotland case (Haldane) was interesting. The author's view on it's effect in realtion to the EqAct was somewhat more nuanced than the GC feminist camp would have us believe.

 

[Ian H]

It's the ABUSE that should be cracked down on; not the use of scientifically correct language.

I very much doubt that iCowden or Aurora approve of abuse - verbal or physical. And to save you asking, *I* don't either ...

What about legally correct language?

 

[AuroraSaab]

I think you've got that the wrong way around. It might be possible to exclude them, GRC notwithstanding, from women's single sex spaces but doing so would need to be a proportionate means to a legitimate end. Intimate care or perhaps rape counselling might just be such a thing but it won't keep them out of changing areas or toilets.

Do you not think excluding male bodies from changing rooms is a proportionate means to the legitimate end of allowing women and girls to get undressed with safety, privacy, and dignity? I think most people would think it's proportionate. Otherwise you are really arguing for all changing rooms to be unisex. If it's not proportionate to exclude transwomen, how is it proportionate to exclude any man?

The toilets issue is the easiest to solve by having fully enclosed cubicles and a third unisex space. Transactivists don't want this solution though. They want access to female spaces.

The article you posted last week about the For Women Scotland case (Haldane) was interesting. The author's view on it's effect in realtion to the EqAct was somewhat more nuanced than the GC feminist camp would have us believe.

Haldane doesn't overrule the Equality Act, it just makes things more confusing for service providers and allows activists to muddy the waters re allowed exemptions by claiming 'Yes you can exclude men but sex isn't just biological now so you can't exclude me'. When they can if it's proportionate.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

It's the ABUSE that should be cracked down on; not the use of scientifically correct language.

I very much doubt that iCowden or Aurora approve of abuse - verbal or physical. And to save you asking, *I* don't either ...

Crack down on the abuse? Reminds me of the old days when we used to go out and confront the actual fascists (ah, those were the days). So much easier to sit in an armchair and do a bit of virtue signalling isn't it Ian? (Not sure why it's always ianh who winds me up the most).

 

[matticus]

What about legally correct language?

Depends. As you know, language evolves, so there will be some overlaps/conflicts.

In general (and not being in the legal profession), I usually choose my words according to other principles than the law. This doesn't usually produce "abusive & inflammatory language", as you put it.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Do you not think excluding male bodies from changing rooms is a proportionate means to the legitimate end of allowing women and girls to get undressed with safety, privacy, and dignity? I think most people would think it's proportionate. Otherwise you are really arguing for all changing rooms to be unisex. If it's not proportionate to exclude transwomen, how is it proportionate to exclude any man?

The toilets issue is the easiest to solve by having fully enclosed cubicles and a third unisex space. Transactivists don't want this solution though. They want access to female spaces.


Haldane doesn't overrule the Equality Act, it just makes things more confusing for service providers and allows activists to muddy the waters re allowed exemptions by claiming 'Yes you can exclude men but sex isn't just biological now so you can't exclude me'. When they can if it's proportionate.

The trouble with debating this with you is that we are, as I said aeons ago, arguing from different premises.

We're not talking all male bodies, just a tiny subset of the population who are accepted by society as female but some of whom may have a penis, though in most cases it will according to @monkers be shrivelled and atrophied. I don't believe for a minute that they're a sexual threat or indeed any other sort of threat in any real sense.

Trans people are a fact of life. We all have to rub along. Privacy and dignity can be managed; it's years since I was in a changing area without cubicles.

 

[Milzy]

The trouble with debating this with you is that we are, as I said aeons ago, arguing from different premises.

We're not talking all male bodies, just a tiny subset of the population who are accepted by society as female but some of whom may have a penis, though in most cases it will according to @monkers be shrivelled and atrophied. I don't believe for a minute that they're a sexual threat or indeed any other sort of threat in any real sense.

Trans people are a fact of life. We all have to rub along. Privacy and dignity can be managed; it's years since I was in a changing area without cubicles.

You’re a man. If you met a women at a bar and then you ended up at her place one thing leads to another and you’re in bed with her but find she has a penis bigger than yours but you have sex with each other does that make you gay?

 

[Bromptonaut]

You’re a man. If you met a women at a bar and then you ended up at her place one thing leads to another and you’re in bed with her but find she has a penis bigger than yours but you have sex with each other does that make you gay?

What are you drinking?