Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Because as brommers has laid out it technically isn't.

It's only 'not illegal' if certain provisions are met.

OK ... I'm happy with the explanation, but less happy with the term 'technically not legal' (because it is when the provisions of the Act are met).

Procurement of abortion outside of the provisions of the 1967 and 1990 Acts remains an offence under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This is to prevent so-called back street abortions being carried as we know used to happen many years ago.

It would be a mistake though to think that the 1861 Act is protection of the rights of a fetus; it was to protect woman from dangerous amateur procedures.

 

[mudsticks]

Are you new here?!?

Yup..

Rumbled..

Thing is, I've had to truss the 'real' Mudders up tightly to a chair in the barn, until she gets her admin finished 'properly' 🙄

 

[icowden]

That's right. Not once has Aurora even hinted that trans women are seizing women's rights. It's all my imagination.

Yes I think it is. I think @AuroraSaab has voiced concerns that trans women are eroding women's rights by diluting what it is to be a woman. If any man can be a women, then what is the point of woman?

 

[theclaud]

Well yes, but you could say that about any subject of the 'culture wars' we don't lump them all together as one topic though..

It's a wedge issue. Divide and rule. Women and LGBT people are damaged by patriarchy in related ways. Conservatives and reactionaries benefit if they can be persuaded that their interests are incompatible or opposed, so that they can persuade people to support regressive agendas. I brought it up because Stock has become a hero/martyr of the so-called 'gender critical' movement in the UK, and has chosen this off all moments to write a piece for payment questioning abortion rights and female bodily autonomy.

 

[newfhouse]

TBF to @icowden I don't think he was proposing sectioning every single pregnant woman.

No, I don’t think he was either. I think his thrust was that there are some women so adversely affected by pregnancy that none should be allowed to make termination decisions without a countersignature from a higher authority. Is that about right @icowden ?

 

[newfhouse]

Yes I think it is. I think @AuroraSaab has voiced concerns that trans women are eroding women's rights by diluting what it is to be a woman. If any man can be a women, then what is the point of woman?

In a rare moment of concord, this is my reading of @AuroraSaab ’s position too. Where we may disagree is that I reckon womanhood is probably able to to cope with a tiny bit of dilution. Easy enough for me as a man to say (I hear you shout!), but it chimes with what women close to me have said, as well as thoughtful voices here and in wider social media.

 

[monkers]

Yes I think it is. I think @AuroraSaab has voiced concerns that trans women are eroding women's rights by diluting what it is to be a woman. If any man can be a women, then what is the point of woman?

Your question is an irrelevance. Sex-based rights set out certain provisions for ensuring that neither men or women can be treated less favourably than the other. What the point of man or woman is whether they be cis, trans, gay, bi, straight or who they happen to be is an irrelevance.

Your question is maybe insightful though, it informs that a certain kind of thinking is going on beyond the boundaries of what equality laws are intended to achieve.

I can't agree that Aurora has just 'voiced concerns', she makes demands, and in the process she portrays trans people, or in particular trans women as a group of people who are fetishists, fantasists, and sexual predators of women and children.

I think that like @mudsticks you fail to spot obvious use of irony. Read it again, it should become obvious.

As to your question itself, 'what is the point of women', try asking your wife!

 

[Ian H]

Yup..

Rumbled..

Thing is, I've had to truss the 'real' Mudders up tightly to a chair in the barn, until she gets her admin finished 'properly' 🙄

50 shades of orange baler-twine?

 

[fozy tornip]

Thresh the witch.

 

[mudsticks]

50 shades of orange baler-twine?

Pink, as it happens.👾

Thresh the witch.

You threatening me with a good time.??

Look, I'm attempting to be 'good' and this return isn't going to file itself 🕝

 

[Ian H]

Pink, as it happens.👾




You threatening me with a good time.??

Look, I'm attempting to be 'good' and this return isn't going to file itself 🕝

HMRC have just sent me a demand for yet more money. I can't help the nagging feeling that I'm paying for wealthy tax avoiders, but there you go.
Anyway - back on the subject of this long-running, tedious thread.

 

[icowden]

Your question is an irrelevance. Sex-based rights set out certain provisions for ensuring that neither men or women can be treated less favourably than the other. What the point of man or woman is whether they be cis, trans, gay, bi, straight or who they happen to be is an irrelevance.

Thank you for confirming that women are irrelevant. I'm not sure that 100% of women agree with you though.

I can't agree that Aurora has just 'voiced concerns', she makes demands, and in the process she portrays trans people, or in particular trans women as a group of people who are fetishists, fantasists, and sexual predators of women and children.

I don't recall her making demands.

I think that like @mudsticks you fail to spot obvious use of irony. Read it again, it should become obvious.

It didn't.

As to your question itself, 'what is the point of women', try asking your wife!

The question was a rhetorical device. If all men are women and all women men, then women don't need any rights. There is no difference between women and men. There is no need to protect womens spaces, womens sport, because they are truly equal to men, as they are men.

Of course, these new men are not quite as strong or as fast and tend to produce babies, but I'm sure we can find some way to distinguish those types of men from other men... Maybe some sort of descriptive word?

 

[mudsticks]

HMRC have just sent me a demand for yet more money. I can't help the nagging feeling that I'm paying for wealthy tax avoiders, but there you go.
Anyway - back on the subject of this long-running, tedious thread.

I'm not sure I can bring myself to..

Get back on the subject that is.🙄
It's not going anywhere useful, and I should never have rejoined (or whatever it was I did)

Anyhow, filed before midnight.. Go me, staying on-task. 💃🌈

Re taxes though..

What you need to do Ian is earn yourself some more money, that way you'd be able to afford to employ someone to help you avoid paying all these stupid taxes - see??

So don't be sitting about here wasting precious time on all this - best crack on 👍🏼

 

[monkers]

Thank you for confirming that women are irrelevant. I'm not sure that 100% of women agree with you though.

Moronic reply. I said the question is irrelevant, not women.

FFS is this really the best you can do?

I'm going to need to stop replying to you and Aurora because it's just a waste of time and mental energy.

 

[icowden]

Moronic reply. I said the question is irrelevant, not women.

Kettle, meet pot? I know what you said. You also said:-

What the point of man or woman is whether they be cis, trans, gay, bi, straight or who they happen to be is an irrelevance.

You state that both their gender and sexuality is irrelevant to anything.

I'm going to need to stop replying to you and Aurora because it's just a waste of time and mental energy.

I see you have run out of discourse and are trying the multitool trick of just being rude.

That's somewhat disappointing.