Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

You keep saying this but 'no male penis in a female sauna' is a perfectly legal exclusion under the Equality Act.

Then quote from the EqA where it says it is a woman's right never to see a penis in a sauna.

 

[monkers]

And for anyone who wants to see a penis or two in the sauna, there's always this ...

#don'tlooknowKaren


View: https://youtu.be/jt4bndI3gHE

 

[newfhouse]

There's nothing to panic about anything when it doesn't affect you. Regarding the discussion of the issues as pearl clutching is just the age old dismissal of women's concern about safety, privacy, and dignity as secondary to men's entitlement.

It doesn't matter to me so it shouldn't matter to anyone is such a big theme in this thread. Stop worrying your little heads about it, ladies.

You keep doing this thing where, presumably as part of your ‘debating’ ‘style’, you extend something that has been said into an extreme caricature. It does make it quite hard to get on board with the substance of your argument.

Regarding your portrayal of my view as dismissal of your concerns based on male privilege (is that right?) it’s worth noting that pretty much every woman posting here thinks you could dial your zealotry back a little too. Why might that be the case?

 

[AuroraSaab]

You keep doing this thing where, presumably as part of your ‘debating’ ‘style’, you extend something that has been said into an extreme caricature. It does make it quite hard to get on board with the substance of your argument.

I've made my position very clear. All we get from you is 'Well sometimes you could treat men as women.... and see how we get on'. You never seem to want to comment on the specifics. I don't think a disabled woman wanting a woman to provide intimate care is a 'See how you get on situation'.

For the situations I've listed, why not try giving a specific answer as to whether you think it's reasonable to exclude men who identify as women.

Any word on the exclusions that are allowed for other groups? Can disabled people exclude able bodied people from their social clubs? Straight people from gay bars?

Regarding your portrayal of my view as dismissal of your concerns based on male privilege (is that right?) it’s worth noting that pretty much every woman posting here thinks you could dial your zealotry back a little too. Why might that be the case?

No idea. All sorts of reasons why anyone on here might dismiss women's concerns; vested interest, socialised to be kind, imagine they are doing a service to gender non conforming kids, luxury beliefs, or just finding it hard to accept that men shouldn't always get what they want.

I don't think wanting to preserve women's single sex spaces and services is zealotry.

 

[monkers]

No idea.

And there's the problem. It's not as if people haven't been trying to tell you. It's your refusal to listen to women.

 

[newfhouse]

For the situations I've listed, why not try giving a specific answer as to whether you think it's reasonable to exclude men who identify as women.

We’re talking about people that have been through a long and arduous process to become, legally, women. At that point it’s way beyond how they identify.

Can disabled people exclude able bodied people from their social clubs? Straight people from gay bars?

Why would they? How would they know with any certainty?

No idea.

Agreed.

All sorts of reasons why anyone on here might dismiss women's concerns; vested interest, socialised to be kind, imagine they are doing a service to gender non conforming kids, luxury beliefs, or just finding it hard to accept that men shouldn't always get what they want.

LOL, as the cool kids say. Read the room, Aurora.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Then quote from the EqA where it says it is a woman's right never to see a penis in a sauna.

Lol. Pretty sure excluding males from a female sauna, penis out or not, is allowed as it's a place where 'a woman might reasonably object to the presence of a man'.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

If this is the best example you have of Kathleen Stock being hateful, it's laughable. Nathan Osseroff wasn't her student. He was a post graduate elsewhere, and an editor on the APA philosophy blog, and he ended up having to apologise for his comments about her, probably because they border on libellous.

If you think her comment is rather unbecoming perhaps you might reflect on your own language in this thread.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We’re talking about people that have been through a long and arduous process to become, legally, women. At that point it’s way beyond how they identify.

We aren't though. Self ID is basically that, self ID. You are confusing self ID with having a GRC. If self ID was introduced it wouldn't apply only to those with a GRC. It would apply to anyone who self ID'ed as the other sex - whenever they liked. No paperwork required.

If you have been going through this whole thing thinking we are just talking about people with GRC's, you haven't even grasped the basic issue.

Why would they? How would they know with any certainty?

So you don't think it's legitimate for disabled people to have a club that excludes the able bodied? Or for a gay club to expect straights to not come? It relies on the social contract, just like having car insurance or not speeding.

LOL, as the cool kids say. Read the room, Aurora.

'The room' is a handful of people on a tiny forum. Perhaps you should look a little further afield and see how many people really think Lia Thomas should be on the women's swim team.

 

[theclaud]

when she sees an adult male penis

My wife has been on the planet 47 years and never seen one

Are we just gonna let this slide, peeps?

 

[monkers]

Lol. Pretty sure excluding males from a female sauna, penis out or not, is allowed as it's a place where 'a woman might reasonably object to the presence of a man'.

View attachment 4021
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

If this is the best example you have of Kathleen Stock being hateful, it's laughable. Nathan Osseroff wasn't her student. He was a post graduate elsewhere, and an editor on the APA philosophy blog, and he ended up having to apologise for his comments about her, probably because they border on libellous.

View attachment 4022

If you think her comment is rather unbecoming perhaps you might reflect on your own language in this thread.

You've failed again.

You needed to provide evidence from law. Instead you've given an opinion offered as 'guidance' of a failed Chair of the EHRC appointed by a failed PM.

Would you like to try again? The law says that a naturist can appear anywhere naked unless prevented by an order of the court.

It doesn't matter to me if you think my language is immoderate. Only an idiot will think that it is a valid comparison with the professional pedagogic responsibility of Stock with her students.

Neither is the only example of the intemperate Stock, it is just one.

 

[newfhouse]

'The room' is a handful of people on a tiny forum. Perhaps you should look a little further afield and see how many people really think Lia Thomas should be on the women's swim team.

You’ve flipped from declaring that the other women in this thread are invested in giving men an easy time to arguing about elite sport without pausing for breath.

I think I’ll leave you to it.

 

[classic33]

We aren't though. Self ID is basically that, self ID. You are confusing self ID with having a GRC. If self ID was introduced it wouldn't apply only to those with a GRC. It would apply to anyone who self ID'ed as the other sex - whenever they liked. No paperwork required.

If you have been going through this whole thing thinking we are just talking about people with GRC's, you haven't even grasped the basic issue.


So you don't think it's legitimate for disabled people to have a club that excludes the able bodied? (1)Or for a gay club to expect straights to not come?]B] It relies on the social contract, just like having car insurance or not speeding.[/B](2)


'The room' is a handful of people on a tiny forum. Perhaps you should look a little further afield and see how many people really think Lia Thomas should be on the women's swim team.

1) I think you'll find a large number of disabled people rely on able bodied people to help get them around, and for help on a daily basis. As much as we may find it annoying that their help is needed in the first place, we're grateful they're there. Why say "you can get me there, but you'll have to stay outside as you're not disabled."[/B] It'd be a slap in the face for them.
2) Isn't a social contract, as you seem to think. One is a legal requirement, the other a condition of using your car on the roads.

 

[monkers]

We aren't though. Self ID is basically that, self ID. You are confusing self ID with having a GRC. If self ID was introduced it wouldn't apply only to those with a GRC. It would apply to anyone who self ID'ed as the other sex - whenever they liked. No paperwork required.

Absolutely clueless and dangerous with it. To suggest that other people are the confused ones is astonishing.

'Self-ID' is a legal process, and it does require paperwork. In the UK it isn't even a thing, though other countries including 11 countries in Europe have it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You've failed again. You needed to provide evidence from law. Instead you've given an opinion offered as 'guidance' of a failed Chair of the EHRC appointed by a failed PM.

The Equality Act is law. It's official guidance clarifying the law. The fact you think it's opinion, and dislike the Chair, and whoever appointed them, is neither here nor there.

Would you like to try again? The law says that a naturist can appear anywhere naked unless prevented by an order of the court.

Which law says this? Being starkers in public isn't being in a single sex space of course, so I'm not sure why you think it's a valid comparison. In single sex spaces and services the exclusions permitted in the Equality Act could be applied to a naturist of either sex.

Absolutely clueless and dangerous with it. To suggest that other people are the confused ones is astonishing.

'Self-ID' is a legal process, and it does require paperwork. In the UK it isn't even a thing, though other countries including 11 countries in Europe have it.

The transwomen held in UK jails don't have a GRC. We know this because if they have a GRC they are counted in the female stats. They have essentially self ID'ed as women. You've quoted the GRA on this to me several times so I'm surprised at you claiming paperwork is needed.

This thread really has covered everything a hundred times. Must admit, naturism as a justification for penises being out in women only saunas was an interesting twist though.

You’ve flipped from declaring that the other women in this thread are invested in giving men an easy time to arguing about elite sport without pausing for breath. I think I’ll leave you to it.

Nope. Just a request that you address the detail and the specifics. Like so many on this thread you don't want to.

 

[classic33]

Nope. Just a request that you address the detail and the specifics. Like so many on this thread you don't want to.

I've tried that and you've deemed it nitpicking, pedantry, and impossible to understand. Every time you've been guilty of the above, it's been one of your own posts being queried.
How you can claim not to understand what you posted is beyond me. A simple yes or no answer is one example.