Gender again. Sorry!

[classic33]

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.


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.


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.

Not in the case of Carr though. Read what lay behind her motives, then come back and answer.

Even in a "safe" single sexed area?

 

[monkers]

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.

Earlier in this thread you were talking about women's toilets and used the phrase 'that's why we exclude them'. You were speaking as if women had the legal authority to exclude trans women from women's toilets. You were challenged for it.

The terms of the availability of the exclusions is set out with the legal acts. You are incorrect in your reading of case-by-case basis. For example, with regard to prisons, the law sets out that prisoners are risk assessed on a case-by-case basis. There is no blanket ban on trans women being in women's prisons in the UK, precisely because the legal precedent has been set by the courts. Now you will argue that legal precedents can be overturned, which of course it correct. However the precedent remains the precedent until such time as it is superseded. At this point in time, I am not aware that a change to that particular legal precedent has occurred, therefore as far as I'm aware there can be no blanket ban.

The inclusion or exclusion of trans people from sports is again set out in the act. Sporting bodies can exclude trans people from certain sports, however they have to show that they can justify it. It's unlikely that chess could be a justifiable exemption, but hurdling might well be.
We both know this is a complex area, one where there has been insufficient research, and where there are no simple answers. I have offered one opinion on this previously as a possible step to a solution.

As far as toilets and changing rooms are concerned, the law sets out that proven intent to cause alarm or distress can be dealt with under the law, but excluding people with no previous history of intending alarm or distress is not a proportionate means of meeting an end.

And here it is again, there is nothing in law that says that a woman or a girl must be protected from seeing a naked male body regardless of how they identify. You may not like that, but that is the way the law stands.

By the way, I've given you the links before with regard to the legal precedents, but you simply brush past them as not relevant.

 

[AuroraSaab]

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.

And yet they don't have to be treated as such in all circumstances.

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.

There clearly are. It just suits you to pretend that men saying they are women presents no difficulties when it clearly presents quite a few.

Problems need solutions, but this approach of yours of banning people is not a solution.

It's not 'people'. Excluding males on the rare occasions when sex matters is a solution that has worked quite well for centuries. Additional unisex facilities would be another possible way forward.

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.

People can judge you from your posts just as they can judge me. You seem a bit rude and pompous, very arrogant and falling back on personal abuse when contradicted. I don't worry at all about being called an idiot by someone like you.

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.

You've defended everything from men in women's sports to men in women's jails. You said that women and girls who see a penis in their changing rooms should ignore it or simply not go there again. You prioritise the wants of men who say they are women over the needs of women and girls. You've joked about oral rape. You call women you don't like 'Karens' .....

 

[monkers]

There clearly are. It just suits you to pretend that men saying they are women presents no difficulties when it clearly presents quite a few.

You keep using the examples of toilets and changing areas. Can you show me where in the EqA it says that trans women with a GRC should not be in those areas?

You keep calling this a dilution of women's rights. If these rights to single sex spaces along with the right to exclude trans women with a GRC exist in law, then you can quote them. If you can't quote them, then I don't have to accept your word that they do.

Just to remind you we've done this routine before. You then called on me to show where in law they (trans women with a GRC) are permitted to be, which I did. I had to keep presssing the point until the time where you conceded there was nothing in law.

I know you like to talk of social mores, etiquette and all the rest of it, but human rights are cemented in law, not in the corner of a person's mind about what constitutes good etiquette.

If there is a clash here, it is not between the rights of women and trans women, it is a clash between the rights of trans women with a GRC and your sense of etiquette, an etiquette which is not shared by all others (including me).

 

[AuroraSaab]

Earlier in this thread you were talking about women's toilets and used the phrase 'that's why we exclude them'. You were speaking as if women had the legal authority to exclude trans women from women's toilets. You were challenged for it.

I meant society as a whole, as you well know. And I meant men, as you well know.

The terms of the availability of the exclusions is set out with the legal acts. .....There is no blanket ban on trans women being in women's prisons in the UK.......The inclusion or exclusion of trans people from sports is again set out in the act. Sporting bodies can exclude trans people from certain sports, however they have to show that they can justify it.

Nobody has said there is a blanket ban on transgender people, only that the opposite sex (whether male or female) can be excluded in certain circumstances.

We both know this is a complex area, one where there has been insufficient research, and where there are no simple answers.

Not complex, it just suits you to pretend it is. Plenty of research that shows male advantage in most sports that require speed, strength, and explosive power. The very simple answer is the one that has worked for a hundred years - compete in the category appropriate to your sex.

As far as toilets and changing rooms are concerned, the law sets out that proven intent to cause alarm or distress can be dealt with under the law, but excluding people with no previous history of intending alarm or distress is not a proportionate means of meeting an end.

You can't do safeguarding on the basis of individual people, one at a time. That would be ridiculous. You do it on broad principles. One of which is that men can impinge on women's need for privacy, dignity, and safety in certain limited circumstances (and vice versa, and ditto for other protected characteristics of the Equality Act, of course).

And here it is again, there is nothing in law that says that a woman or a girl must be protected from seeing a naked male body regardless of how they identify. You may not like that, but that is the way the law stands.

It's not 'must be protected', it's 'can be when it's justified' (paraphrasing). You might not like that but that is the way that they law stands - and it seems pretty reasonable that girls are protected from seeing a naked male body in certain circumstances. eg naked men in an Old Masters painting in GCSE Art is fine. Male body in the showers of the Womens changing rooms at the leisure centre isn't fine. We all know the difference.

Your relentless attempts to normalise naked blokes around women and girls by saying it's legal is noted though.

By the way, I've given you the links before with regard to the legal precedents, but you simply brush past them as not relevant.

And you continue to think you know better than the EHRC on what the Equality Act allows.

 

[monkers]

I meant society as a whole, as you well know. And I meant men, as you well know.

One of us is confused. Are you saying trans women are men or women now?

 

[monkers]

It's not 'people'. Excluding males on the rare occasions when sex matters is a solution that has worked quite well for centuries. Additional unisex facilities would be another possible way forward.

Trans women are people. It does not follow that all people are trans women. It is not the case that the UK has had sex segregation for centuries, there became a convention in the Victorian era which seems to be where your mind set is rooted.

There are those of the GC brigade who are calling for changes to the EqA because sex-based rights are not defined as biological but as legal. If you are right, why does the law need changing?

 

[monkers]

You've defended everything from men in women's sports to men in women's jails. You said that women and girls who see a penis in their changing rooms should ignore it or simply not go there again. You prioritise the wants of men who say they are women over the needs of women and girls. You've joked about oral rape. You call women you don't like 'Karens' .....

Mischaracterisation. Why do you keep doing this?

I've said little about sport.

I've said that there is legal precedent about the access of women's prisons; because there is. As for defending it, I've pointed to the fact that there have been no cases of women being assaulted by trans women prisoners in the last four years. Here is an extract from the legal precedent ...

Lord Justice Holroyde, sitting with Mr Justice Swift, dismissed the claim. He acknowledged the “fear and anxiety” some female inmates would suffer if a transgender inmate was in the same jail, but said existing policies should mitigate this.

“The difficulty which the claimant faces, in my view, is that it is not possible to argue that the defendant should have excluded from women’s prisons all transgender women,” he wrote.

“To do so would be to ignore, impermissibly, the rights of transgender women to live in their chosen gender; and it is not the course which the claimant herself says the defendant should have taken.

This is a case of you wanting to shoot the messenger. Lord Justice Holroyde and Justice Swift have together set a legal precedent.

As far as changing rooms are concerned I've said that you are wrong to call this a clash of rights. That's because there is not clash of rights unless or until you can show that women and girls are protected in law from seeing one (a penis).

Your problem here is that you want to make having a certain body type a kind of wrongdoing. It isn't. The law doesn't act that way. The law prohibits certain acts and behaviours, but not body types (thankfully). Your wish is to police people by body type, but the law doesn't permit it.

Nudity is legal in the UK. None of us enjoy some right of protection from seeing other people's bodies unless there is an accompanying behaviour. That's what the law says. So what the law says is that if get an accidental eyeful or a glimpse, then no offence has been committed.

Karens. I don't call women a 'Karen' due to a difference of opinion, but because of their aggressive bigotry and self-appointment to unlawfully police other people. This is because they don't care about the harm they visit on other including women.

Oral sex with a flacid penis was not the butt of the joke - you were.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You keep using the examples of toilets and changing areas. Can you show me where in the EqA it says that trans women with a GRC should not be in those areas?

The EHRC has made it clear that those with a GRC can be excluded when appropriate. They can be excluded for being male. They are not excluded for being transgender.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

You keep calling this a dilution of women's rights. If these rights to single sex spaces along with the right to exclude trans women with a GRC exist in law, then you can quote them.

This is your fall back position now. 'Those rights never existed in the first place'. We all know they have existed - and thanks to transwomen pushing for access to women's single sex spaces the EHRC have had to confirm what we all knew until 5 minutes ago. Which is that transwomen don't have to be treated as women for all purposes, and having a GRC isn't a free pass.

If there is a clash here, it is not between the rights of women and trans women, it is a clash between the rights of trans women with a GRC and your sense of etiquette, an etiquette which is not shared by all others (including me).

The need for single sex spaces and services, for either sex, isn't etiquette. A disabled woman or man wanting a same sex carer to perform intimate washing and care out of a desire for dignity isn't just etiquette, for example. It just suits you to dismiss and minimise these needs in order to facilitate access for men. In practical terms what's the difference between a man with a GRC who says he's a woman, and a man without a GRC who says the same?

 

[AuroraSaab]

If you are right, why does the law need changing?

Because until recently we all knew that 'woman' and 'man' meant biological females and males. Thanks to the likes of Stonewall redefining sex as gender and misleading the companies they train that this meant transwomen had to be treated exactly the same as women, we are now in a position where some people feel it needs to be clarified that the Equality Act means biological sex not gender.

If these rights never existed under the Equality Act why is it a stated aim of Stonewall to have these exemptions removed? (Stonewall submission to Women & Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on Transgender Equality submitted on 27 August 2015).

We've been over this stuff a hundred times. You still think you know better than the law. You pretend these exemptions don't exist and when that fails you try to trump it with the vague United Nations 'right to dignity' principle. If these rights never existed, you'd think there would be a hundred court cases a week seeing as how so many service providers are using these exemptions on a daily basis.

 

[monkers]

The EHRC has made it clear that those with a GRC can be excluded when appropriate. They can be excluded for being male. They are not excluded for being transgender.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

View attachment 4093

This is your fall back position now. 'Those rights never existed in the first place'. We all know they have existed - and thanks to transwomen pushing for access to women's single sex spaces the EHRC have had to confirm what we all knew until 5 minutes ago. Which is that transwomen don't have to be treated as women for all purposes, and having a GRC isn't a free pass.



The need for single sex spaces and services, for either sex, isn't etiquette. A disabled woman or man wanting a same sex carer to perform intimate washing and care out of a desire for dignity isn't just etiquette, for example. It just suits you to dismiss and minimise these needs in order to facilitate access for men. In practical terms what's the difference between a man with a GRC who says he's a woman, and a man without a GRC who says the same?

What a load of opinionated tripe.

The EHRC can make nothing clear - it offers guidance that has no legal teeth. The legal precent comes from two High Court Justices. The EHRC have no greater competence than them. That remains the truth no matter how big you make the lettering, and how many times you repeat it. A higher status judge can overturn the legal precedent, as could an Act of Parliament, but you, me or the EHRC, no.

'We all know'. There you go speaking for other again without substantiating the claim. Too substantiate the claim, please do quote from the EqA where women have such rights. The truth is you can not substantiate your false claims. But carry on calling me arrogant and pompous if you like, it changes nothing, you remain just an opinionated windbag.

Did you think I wouldn't notice you shifting the goalposts? The issue of carers is a separate one to single sex spaces - going for a pee on your own behind a door, or getting changed out of your swimming things in a changing room is not intimate care.

In practical terms what's the difference between a man with a GRC who says he's a woman, and a man without a GRC who says the same?

A man with a GRC would surely call himself a man. A man without a GRC is legally male. What's the difference? You still asking? It's the law.

 

[monkers]

Because until recently we all knew that 'woman' and 'man' meant biological females and males. Thanks to the likes of Stonewall redefining sex as gender and misleading the companies they train that this meant transwomen had to be treated exactly the same as women, we are now in a position where some people feel it needs to be clarified that the Equality Act means biological sex not gender.

Here we go again ... 'we all knew'. No you didn't.

Stonewall didn't redefine anything. The law had already defined sex and gender in 2004 and the rights of trans people in 1999. In 2003 Stonewall called themselves an LGB charity. Later, beyond 2010 Stonewall were quoting the law rather than redefining anything and had become an LGBT charity. There is no 'Stonewall Law', it is the bullshit of bigotry.

There was no prior legal definition of 'woman' or 'man' this is invention. There was an assumption made by cis het people that nobody experiences incongruence - and now you ought know that they were wrong.

 

[icowden]

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.

I didn't realise that the equalities act was only restricted to healthcare?

 

[monkers]

I didn't realise that the equalities act was only restricted to healthcare?

It isn't. I can't think that I had said otherwise.

 

[monkers]

Because until recently we all knew that 'woman' and 'man' meant biological females and males. Thanks to the likes of Stonewall redefining sex as gender and misleading the companies they train that this meant transwomen had to be treated exactly the same as women, we are now in a position where some people feel it needs to be clarified that the Equality Act means biological sex not gender.

If these rights never existed under the Equality Act why is it a stated aim of Stonewall to have these exemptions removed? (Stonewall submission to Women & Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on Transgender Equality submitted on 27 August 2015).

View attachment 4094

We've been over this stuff a hundred times. You still think you know better than the law. You pretend these exemptions don't exist and when that fails you try to trump it with the vague United Nations 'right to dignity' principle. If these rights never existed, you'd think there would be a hundred court cases a week seeing as how so many service providers are using these exemptions on a daily basis.

So this is your evidence that Stonewall have redefined sex is it?

Stonewall were invited to talk to the Select Committee, they offered an opinion which has never been adopted into law, but you talk about Stonewall Law and them redefining sex.

This is madness.

I don't know better than the law. I just quote the law at you and you don't like it one bit.

The legal precedent comes from the Justices of the High Court. No amount of your flim flam and whataboutery is going to change it.