Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

E

Sorry to go back to the archives.

German basic law treats the unborn as a person with certain rights from conception. Bear in mind this was to prevent the contempt for life under the Hitler regime. Abortion is therefore illegal, but is not punishable if certain conditions are met.

Now I assume you wouldn't agree with this viewpoint, but my point is you cannot use law to decide this. If the unborn have a right to life this exists irrespective of whether the law recognises this or not.

I have the same view of GRC's. A transitioned male may legally be deemed female, and claim a right to be treated so, but to my mind this does not change the fact that such a person remains male, and their womanhood is a legal fiction. This matters when it comes to things like sport or those whose conscience won't let them use fake pronouns.

Similarly with WHO classifications. Changing categories does not change the underlying reality. If transgenderism is a disorder it remains so regardless of activists' success in pretending it isn't.

Now it might be for some this is a disorder, but others simply look at the opposite sex and decide that is what they want to be. If they do so they cannot imo demand everyone else has to go along with this as though it is a right.

I know nothing of German law, so I reserve comment.

There is no legal fiction in UK law. UK law does not say that trans women become cis women or that trans men become cis men. The GRA sets out that trans women shall enjoy the same rights as cis women in so far as they reasonably can, (and trans men likewise) to the extent that, on introduction, the GRA permitted that a trans woman could only marry a man and not a woman, hence the reasoning for the spousal veto. The law has its basis in human rights. To that end it was a wonderful achievement, though it is now outdated and not supported by political will by a government which has determined that its ambitions are best served by driving a culture war by capturing the votes of bigots.

 

[AuroraSaab]

More bigotry on display. Trans women are not 'blokes'.

You can't change your sex and gender identity is a subjective experience. Every one of us on here will be the same sex tomorrow as we were on the day we were born. There's no difference between a transwoman and any of the other 40 billion males on the planet, however they choose to express themselves, and regardless of any drugs or medical procedures they undertake. It's not bigotry to say so.

 

[monkers]

You can't change your sex and gender identity is a subjective experience. Every one of us on here will be the same sex tomorrow as we were on the day we were born. There's no difference between a transwoman and any of the other 40 billion males on the planet, however they choose to express themselves, and regardless of any drugs or medical procedures they undertake. It's not bigotry to say so.

Do not subjective experiences matter? Whenever you say 'vulnerable women' you are essentially speaking of subjective experience.

 

[icowden]

Absolutely not. I haven't denigrated any group of people by category of sex or gender identity or sexual orientation.

I was referring to your comment about respect for other people. You know that I find our back and forth interesting and polite, but you must acknowledge that your respect tends to evaporate a little with @AuroraSaab.

 

[monkers]

I was referring to your comment about respect for other people. You know that I find our back and forth interesting and polite, but you must acknowledge that your respect tends to evaporate a little with @AuroraSaab.

There is no requirement to respect bigotry. I haven't mocked her for her sex, gender, or orientation or any other characteristic. Aurora persists in calling trans women 'blokes'. Sad if you can't see the difference.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Do not subjective experiences matter? Whenever you say 'vulnerable women' you are essentially speaking of subjective experience.

I think people in prison count as objectively vulnerable, regardless of their sex. I think women and girls getting undressed in a changing room are objectively vulnerable. I think a person (of either sex) who is disabled and needs intimate care is objectively vulnerable. I think women in domestic violence refuges are objectively vulnerable.

There's a reason all these services were segregated by sex in the first place. It's an objective fact that women and girls - at certain times - require spaces that give them privacy, dignity, and safety away from men. (And men require the same on occasion). These services and spaces didn't originate on the basis of the subjective whim of a few women.

The sports thing is fairness not vulnerability obviously, though obviously safety comes into it there on occasion.

 

[icowden]

There is no requirement to respect bigotry. I haven't mocked her for her sex, gender, or orientation or any other characteristic. Aurora persists in calling trans women 'blokes'. Sad if you can't see the difference.

I can see the difference between making an offhand generalisation to perhaps provoke a reaction and genuine bigotry.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The bar for what counts as 'bigotry' and 'transphobia' is so very low that it will pretty much include all of us at some point.

 

[monkers]

The bar for what counts as 'bigotry' and 'transphobia' is so very low that it will pretty much include all of us at some point.

Your repeated transphobic language, the frequency of it, and your disdain of people who point out your bigotry makes it plain - you are indeed a bigot, to such an extent that you fill your time with framing innocent people as being guilty of being imposters, groomers, sexual predators and paedophiles. You tell lies pretty much in every post. You mischaracterise the law and anybody in support of it. You mischaracterise the posting of other forum users, you invent things in order to 'win the argument'.
You frequently speak as if for all women. You aggrandise some other known bigots, and defend other bigots. Some low bar eh.

This is how I know you are a transphobic bigot.

 

[icowden]

Your repeated transphobic language, the frequency of it, and your disdain of people who point out your bigotry makes it plain - you are indeed a bigot, to such an extent that you fill your time with framing innocent people as being guilty of being imposters, groomers, sexual predators and paedophiles.

Again - I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you

You tell lies pretty much in every post.

Saying something that you disagree with is not lying. You have to demonstrate that @AuroraSaab has an intent to deceive. I don't think you can do that.

You mischaracterise the law and anybody in support of it. You mischaracterise the posting of other forum users, you invent things in order to 'win the argument'.

Again - this is a discussion that has many opinions. Sometimes people misunderstand and sometimes arguments get contradictory especially when heated.

You aggrandise some other known bigots, and defend other bigots.

She offers differing viewpoints.

Now that you have got it out of your system, how does this help further the discussion? I'd much rather see @AuroraSaab's arguments countered. Some I agree with, some I disagree with. Not all internet references are equal and we should be discussing that and learning from it, not just shouting at each other.

Anyway - that's my twopennorth.

 

[monkers]

Again - I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you

Saying something that you disagree with is not lying. You have to demonstrate that @AuroraSaab has an intent to deceive. I don't think you can do that.


Again - this is a discussion that has many opinions. Sometimes people misunderstand and sometimes arguments get contradictory especially when heated.


She offers differing viewpoints.

Now that you have got it out of your system, how does this help further the discussion? I'd much rather see @AuroraSaab's arguments countered. Some I agree with, some I disagree with. Not all internet references are equal and we should be discussing that and learning from it, not just shouting at each other.

Anyway - that's my twopennorth.

Well now, defending a known liar and bigot; why would you do that?

 

[icowden]

Well now, defending a known liar and bigot; why would you do that?

Because she isn't. You saying something is so, doesn't make it so. I challenge you to prove that @AuroraSaab is either of those things.

Also I don't like this fall back into insults which seems to happen whenever people see something that they can't find a counter to. Let's actually try to keep this as a discussion rather than an insult competition.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Honestly, IC, it's fine lol. I think people can read the posts for themselves. I don't feel the need to defend myself from the allegation that I call transwomen men. I do. They are. Consequently they shouldn't be in women's and girls single sex spaces and services. If someone wants to find that opinion bigoted and transphobic they are welcome to. I don't feel the need to call people idiots, or dumb, or liars, or swear, because the arguments for excluding men from certain services, spaces, and sports, stand on their own.

 

[icowden]

Honestly, IC, it's fine lol. I think people can read the posts for themselves. I don't feel the need to defend myself from the allegation that I call transwomen men. I do.

Which is fair enough. But do you do it to their faces?

I may be wrong, but I would suspect that like most normal people you would try to make a transwoman or transman comfortable when chatting by trying to use whatever pronouns they ask you to use etc. A true bigot would not.

 

[AuroraSaab]

In personal interaction I would use their actual name. Otherwise 'they' and 'them'. If they asked me outright I'd say that we remain the sex we are born. I don't think you have the right to demand what pronouns people use for you, though obviously you can use preferred pronouns for them if you wish. It would be asking people to lie and tacitly endorse an ideology they don't subscribe to.

People on here have no issue using 'cis' about others even though some find it offensive. I don't think they should be compelled not to use it, even out of politeness.