Gender again. Sorry!

[Ian H]

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)

It's clarified my thoughts, even in as much as I realise that not everything is black & white. I'd pretty much go with Claudine's view, who seems to manage to be both empathetic and rigorous. But yes, currently it is just people restating their entrenched positions in various shouty ways

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 👍🏼

My accountant is a jolly, well-fed kind of person, whom I've known for circa 30 years. He keeps me on the straight & narrow (why is that phrase not 'straight and strait'?).

 

[monkers]

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

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


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

That's somewhat disappointing.

This is the paragraph you've cherry-picked from ...

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.

To you that and decide to say that this paragraph means that I've said women are irrelevant is moronic. I don't think you are an actual moron, but if you are going to resort to this kind of idiotic kind of reply, then what kind of response should you expect?

The Equality Act expects people to behave in a certain kind of way to each other with regard to the nine protected characteristics. Neither the EqA or I express the view that there needs to be a definition or explanation as to 'the point of women', just that the EqA applies equally to both sexes; that one sex can not be treated less favourably than the other.

You've tried to land some form of 'gotcha' style point in the same vein as Aurora's stupid line about 'you don't care about women and girls' and you've failed badly.

 

[icowden]

You've tried to land some form of 'gotcha' style point in the same vein as Aurora's stupid line about 'you don't care about women and girls' and you've failed badly.

Not at all. I have posed a reasonable somewhat philosophical idea- to wit, if any man can become a woman and any woman a man, then ultimately there is no distinction between man and woman. If equality strives to make women equal to men then it follows that in a new gender fluid world where anyone can be a woman or a man at any time, true equality of the sexes has been achieved. Women's rights are no longer required. The suffragettes have achieved their mission for true equality.

We can no longer justify excluding some women from events, prisons or shelters just because they used to be a man. Legally they are a woman, and entitled to be treated as such. Thus we must remove women's rights in favour of human rights that apply equally to both sexes. There is no need for any other protection.

That would seem to be a logical conclusion to accepting that transwomen are women and transmen are men.

 

[icowden]

The Equality Act expects people to behave in a certain kind of way to each other with regard to the nine protected characteristics. Neither the EqA or I express the view that there needs to be a definition or explanation as to 'the point of women', just that the EqA applies equally to both sexes; that one sex can not be treated less favourably than the other.

But this can't work any more can it? If I as a man become a woman and obtain a GRC I am now legally a woman. I am entitled to any protections available to women under law. I am now woman. The basis of the EqA is that one sex was being treated less favourably than the other. But now we don't have separate sexes as those things which defined the inequality of women - bearing a child, being weaker of stature (generally speaking) etc are now irrelevant as you can be a woman if you a stronger and don't possess the ability to bear a child. We don't need to protect women any more.

Or am I missing something?

 

[multitool]

Icow missing the very obvious paradox that if transitioning means that men=women there would be no need to transition.

 

[Ian H]

...If equality strives to make women equal to men then it follows...

Are you saying it shouldn't?

 

[monkers]

Not at all. I have posed a reasonable somewhat philosophical idea- to wit, if any man can become a woman and any woman a man, then ultimately there is no distinction between man and woman. If equality strives to make women equal to men then it follows that in a new gender fluid world where anyone can be a woman or a man at any time, true equality of the sexes has been achieved. Women's rights are no longer required. The suffragettes have achieved their mission for true equality.

We can no longer justify excluding some women from events, prisons or shelters just because they used to be a man. Legally they are a woman, and entitled to be treated as such. Thus we must remove women's rights in favour of human rights that apply equally to both sexes. There is no need for any other protection.

That would seem to be a logical conclusion to accepting that transwomen are women and transmen are men.

You haven't. You've plundered the Aurora playbook of willfully misunderstanding what the law is. In law a trans woman is a woman in terms of their rights.

You are just joining in with the hysteria that trans women are somehow stealing rights; they are not. Quite rightly, a trans women attending an NHS run abortion clinic saying that she is 20 weeks pregnant and seeking an abortion might be referred to a different department of the hospital.

On the other hand, a trans woman overlooked for promotion due to her being legally female, could hope to successfully bring a tribunal case against her employer.

 

[monkers]

But this can't work any more can it? If I as a man become a woman and obtain a GRC I am now legally a woman. I am entitled to any protections available to women under law. I am now woman. The basis of the EqA is that one sex was being treated less favourably than the other. But now we don't have separate sexes as those things which defined the inequality of women - bearing a child, being weaker of stature (generally speaking) etc are now irrelevant as you can be a woman if you a stronger and don't possess the ability to bear a child. We don't need to protect women any more.

Or am I missing something?

Yeh, you are definitely missing something (said while biting my tongue).

The EqA provides that those people covered by the same characteristic are entitled to healthcare. It doesn't need to specify separately what those healthcare needs are by personal characteristic, just that men and women be they cis or trans have the rights to have the health needs met no less favourably than others.

Therefore your claimed point that the act can not be fit for purpose any more is moot. It has been working for the past 13 years. This is obvious in two ways, the GRA was passed in 2003, seven years before the EqA 2010. Therefore to say that this can not work any more is an anachronism. The GRA came first and set out its stall in respect of the GRA making 'gender reassignment' the name of the protected characteristic. Only those who people who hold a GRC acquire the rights under the EqA of their acquired sex.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You haven't. You've plundered the Aurora playbook of willfully misunderstanding what the law is. In law a trans woman is a woman in terms of their rights.

You keep saying this even though it has been made clear that the allowed exemptions of the Equality Act allow even males with a GRC to be excluded in certain circumstances. So transwomen don't have the same rights as women - just the right to be treated the same in most circumstances; which most people have no issue with because most of the time it doesn't matter.

You are just joining in with the hysteria that trans women are somehow stealing rights; they are not.

When a male is allowed to enter the female sports category women lose out. When a male can get undressed in the women's changing room women lose out. When men are placed in women's jails women lose out. When women cannot meet together without a male demanding they be included women lose out.

Your insistence that men saying they are women changes nothing is ridiculous. Sometimes rights clash. Rather than deal with this reality and look for solutions you hand wave away any concerns or pretend that women never had those 'rights' to begin with.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Icow missing the very obvious paradox that if transitioning means that men=women there would be no need to transition.

What are they transitioning to if not a stereotype of gender roles and appearance? We all know you can't change sex. So what is there to transition to?

 

[monkers]

You keep saying this even though it has been made clear that the allowed exemptions of the Equality Act allow even males with a GRC to be excluded in certain circumstances. So transwomen don't have the same rights as women - just the right to be treated the same in most circumstances; which most people have no issue with because most of the time it doesn't matter.

Just as when you are driving your car and a police officer asks if you have a driving licence, you just reply 'yes' or 'no' without feeling the need to specify all of the vehicle types that you are and are not permitted to drive.

We know there are exemptions, but you continue with your loony tunes approach that the exemptions justify blanket bans to trans people - they don't. This has been tested in the courts, and the legal precedent is there.

 

[monkers]

Your insistence that men saying they are women changes nothing is ridiculous.

That isn't what I say. Over the course of the entire thread, you've misrepresented what others say and been called out for it by others. Now @icowden is trying to pull the same stunts.

For trans people the changes mean everything, while for me it changes little if anything at all. I've never seen a trans person flaunting themselves in a women's space. I've seen people who I think maybe trans in these spaces, but never had a problem from them. I imagine that they'd be way more scared of me than I would be of them, you know in case I might be a 'Karen'.

 

[classic33]

You keep saying this even though it has been made clear that the allowed exemptions of the Equality Act allow even males with a GRC to be excluded in certain circumstances. So transwomen don't have the same rights as women - just the right to be treated the same in most circumstances; which most people have no issue with because most of the time it doesn't matter.


When a male is allowed to enter the female sports category women lose out. When a male can get undressed in the women's changing room women lose out. When men are placed in women's jails women lose out. When women cannot meet together without a male demanding they be included women lose out.

Your insistence that men saying they are women changes nothing is ridiculous. Sometimes rights clash. Rather than deal with this reality and look for solutions you hand wave away any concerns or pretend that women never had those 'rights' to begin with.

You're not guaranteed to be safe in single sexed areas, even in schools. Search Sharon Carr.

You brought Barbie Kardashian into these threads, have a read of how dangerous a female prisoner can be to prison staff and other prisoners.
She, Carr, not only made the threats, but carried them out.

 

[monkers]

Your insistence that men saying they are women changes nothing is ridiculous. Sometimes rights clash. Rather than deal with this reality and look for solutions you hand wave away any concerns or pretend that women never had those 'rights' to begin with.

I'm not needing to insist anything such thing. The law deals with it. In law trans women with a GRC are women - it's been the case for 20 years.

There is no clash of rights, because you know, trans women are legally women, and rights exist in law rather than in some corner of your mind.

Problems need solutions, but this approach of yours of banning people is not a solution. When contributors to this thread post something as a step to a solution, you just go into overdrive posting pages of drivel trying to shout them down while attempting to justify your bigotry. Your view is an extreme one, and the evidence is that trans people and women are becoming increasingly victimised by people who harbour the same bigotry as you.

The thing that has upset people on this thread is the misrepresentation of what people here actually say, and the mischaracterisation of their personality in other ways. I'm actually nothing like the person you so like to portray me as. You worry about being called an idiot while you mischaracterise people on here. You go say far as to tell women on the forum that they obviously don't care about women and girls, which sounds psychotic, however you think you are the polite and innocent one.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're not guaranteed to be safe in single sexed areas, even in schools. Search Sharon Carr.

And yet in every country that keeps records statistically men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of all violent and sexual crime. And in the case of sex crimes, women are overwhelmingly the victims.

You brought Barbie Kardashian into these threads, have a read of how dangerous a female prisoner can be to prison staff and other prisoners. She, Carr, not only made the threats, but carried them out.

I'd rather take my chances with a potentially violent female than a potentially violent male, for obvious reasons. We are know women can be violent, but statistically they are less likely to be. It's one of the reasons they separated mixed jails into male and female to begin with.

We know there are exemptions, but you continue with your loony tunes approach that the exemptions justify blanket bans to trans people - they don't. This has been tested in the courts, and the legal precedent is there.

Nobody is being banned for being trans. Males can be excluded when appropriate and justified, regardless of how they identify. It doesn't have to be on a personal case by case basis, it can be all males. Several sports organisations seem confident enough to enforce a protected category for females - ie a blanket ban of males - so I look forward to the legal challenges that bring up these court tested legal precedents of which you speak.