Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I've made my position clear a dozen times, Classic, as have you. We are ideologically opposed on the issue of preserving the right to single sex spaces and services. I'm in favour, you seem not to be. It's that simple really.

 

[monkers]

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.

It is not official guidance. It is non-statutory guidance published contrary to statutory guidance. It's the kind of dangerous amateur behaviour that frustrates the hell out of lawyers, because people acting in good faith could make decisions on the basis of its existence only to find themselves in court having to explain their actions.

In other words it has no legal standing representing the amateur opinion of someone not fit to hold that office.

Lawyers will advise people to ignore it and stick to the 'black ink' text of the EqA and the staturory guidance.

 

[monkers]

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 is a grey area. It may well have been that trans women with a GRC were counted in with other women - I think that's likely. However, as we now know the 2016 figures came from a prison survey and not from the prison service entry registrations. It looks likely that the 7 of 97 figure comes from that survey, though I'm not claiming surety.

 

[classic33]

I've made my position clear a dozen times, Classic, as have you. We are ideologically opposed on the issue of preserving the right to single sex spaces and services. I'm in favour, you seem not to be. It's that simple really.

You have dismissed my view as meaningless on the basis that it doesn't match yours.
I'm for allowing people to live their lives, you seem to be against that. Exactly why you refuse to make clear, you hide behind all single sex spaces, all women and girls. Prisons are not a single sex area, yet you demand that they be.

 

[monkers]

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.

Haha, you've exposed yourself again. There isn't a law, that's why it's not illegal. The UK is a country that operates a 'negative rights' system. This means that if there is no legislation that prohibits something, then it is legal, with the result that the police have no powers to intervene.

A claim of accompanying alarm or distress could lead to a charge such as harassment, but in order for the claimant to succeed they must be able to prove that the intention was to cause alarm or distress. So the 'criminal' aspect is to intend to cause alarm or distress, and not by dint of being naked.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/nudity-public-guidance-handling-cases-naturism

Therefore as the law stands, a man who identifies as a naturist can be in a sauna in the presence of women.

The things that you presume are absolute aspects of law are nothing more than what simply amount to perceptions of good manners. Bad manners as of themselves are not deemed criminal behaviour.

A public sauna can not be thought of as a private space - this is rather obvious.

There is nothing wrong with a business owner writing a policy to provide a service for the comfort of customers. For example, if they have only one sauna, they can timetable so that their offer provides sessions for women only, men only, mixed, gay women, gay men, etc etc.

What they can not do is to blanket ban any category of people with a protected characteristic.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You have dismissed my view as meaningless on the basis that it doesn't match yours.
I'm for allowing people to live their lives, you seem to be against that. Exactly why you refuse to make clear, you hide behind all single sex spaces, all women and girls. Prisons are not a single sex area, yet you demand that they be.

I disagree with your view. You're entitled to hold it, in fact I would defend your right to hold it. I'm all in favour of living your life however you like but surely anyone can see there are times when how one person lives their life impinges on other people living theirs.

 

[monkers]

I disagree with your view. You're entitled to hold it, in fact I would defend your right to hold it. I'm all in favour of living your life however you like but surely anyone can see there are times when how one person lives their life impinges on other people living theirs.

There are so many examples. It might happen to be my opinion that the rights of motorists impinge on my rights as a cyclist - and we know that there are many drivers who believe the reverse is true.

But as cyclists will we readily agree to be legislated against to get us off the roads and roll over because we are the minority group?

Where a competition of rights does exist, the law maintains that a balance of compromise must be found. Blanket bans are not the result of a balancing of legal rights, or a compromise; they are an erasure of the rights of one group.

In many of the circumstances that you cite, there is no women's sex-based right - you presume it. There can be no competition of rights where none exists.

I should point out there is a test included here - let's see how well you do.

 

[classic33]

I disagree with your view. You're entitled to hold it, in fact I would defend your right to hold it. I'm all in favour of living your life however you like but surely anyone can see there are times when how one person lives their life impinges on other people living theirs.

As there are times when wanting to live your life, is only possible by dictating what others have to do to allow you to live your life.
Which is what you want, the right to dictate how others must live their lives, to suit you.

 

[multitool]

I disagree with your view. You're entitled to hold it, in fact I would defend your right to hold it. I'm all in favour of living your life however you like but surely anyone can see there are times when how one person lives their life impinges on other people living theirs.

Yeah, but how about we deal with the ones that exist, rather than the ones you've conjured up in your head because you hate trans women.

They aren't impinging on your rights in any way. You've never even met one in any meaningful way, and certainly not in a woman's space.

Bit like the Jews being a threat to world harmony, isn't it.

Some people seem to need something to hate.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I should point out there is a test included here - let's see how well you do.

Sometimes I forget how pompous you are. Then you remind me and it makes me laugh.

They aren't impinging on your rights in any way.

'You can only be concerned about men in women's prisons if you're in a women's prison, or fairness in sport if you're an elite sportswoman, or men in women's refuges if you're in a women's refuge, or children's healthcare if ... and so on ...'

Bit like the Jews being a threat to world harmony, isn't it.

Holocaust appropriation in order to entitle men to be in women's spaces.

 

[multitool]

No, pointing out how weird people get fixated on vulnerable minority groups and try and present them as a threat.

 

[multitool]

'You can only be concerned about men in women's prisons if you're in a women's prison, or fairness in sport if you're an elite sportswoman, or men in women's refuges if you're in a women's refuge, or children's healthcare if ... and so on ...'

And guess what?

You aren't in any of those any more than I am.

 

[classic33]

Sometimes I forget how pompous you are. Then you remind me and it makes me laugh.


'You can only be concerned about men in women's prisons if you're in a women's prison, or fairness in sport if you're an elite sportswoman, or men in women's refuges if you're in a women's refuge, or children's healthcare if ... and so on ...'



Holocaust appropriation in order to entitle men to be in women's spaces.

And as you have pointed out you have no interest in children's healthcare, unless it's girls healthcare only.

 

[monkers]

Sometimes I forget how pompous you are.

Thank you - it's nice to be appreciated. Anyway, you're welcome - no charge.

 

[monkers]

Holocaust appropriation in order to entitle men to be in women's spaces.

What a bizarre comment.