Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

It's an example of male violence. Which is one of the reasons why we allow men to be excluded from certain spaces and services intended for women in the first place.

This is the age old sexist trope that women cannot talk about their specific needs or rights in case it makes violent men do something terrible. Once again women are responsible for what men do. It's just 'Look what you made me do' in another form. It's 'Look what you made him do'.

Funnily enough I've never seen you show any concern about Andrew Tate or the incel movement and how they fan the flames of hatred of women.

Jeez. You've really surpassed yourself with this disingenuous bullshit.

The trope you talk about is violence against women because they disagree with the violent men. In this case the violent man and you are in agreement, which is the entire point of the post, and the very thing that is making you squirm so much.

And why on earth would I mention Andrew Tate (or incels) on a thread about trans issues? AFAIK there isn't a thread on Andrew Tate here, and even if there was it would have no bearing on my posts here.

You are getting desperate.

 

[monkers]

Which is one of the reasons why we allow men to be excluded from certain spaces and services intended for women in the first place.

There it is again. Aurora pretending she's in charge of speaking for women, pretending that she has the legal right to decide.

The law does not allow you to exclude trans women from anywhere. There are permissible exclusions, but this 'we allow exclusion' stuff is not legal. It's just more bigotry.

 

[AuroraSaab]

In this case the violent man and you are in agreement, which us the entire point of the post, and the very thing that is making you squirm so much.

That's quite a leap. And I'm not sure how feminism on the Internet - like saying men shouldn't be in women's sports - makes women responsible for male violence.

The law does not allow you to exclude trans women from anywhere. There are permissible exclusions, but this 'we allow exclusion' stuff is not legal. It's just more bigotry.

The Equality Act allows either sex to be excluded when it's a proportionate response to a legitimate aim. Same goes for the other characteristics. Stop pretending it doesn't. I've never said men can legally be excluded from everything everywhere all the time.

 

[monkers]

The Equality Act allows either sex to be excluded when it's a proportionate response to a legitimate aim. Same goes for the other characteristics. Stop pretending it doesn't. I've never said men can legally be excluded from everything everywhere all the time.

It doesn't give YOU or any other member of the public the right to exclude anyone. So let's cut the 'that's why WE exclude them' bullshit.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've never said I personally am the gatekeeper of every women's jail or rape crisis centre in the country. You know very well what I mean when I say 'We separate 10 year old boys and girls when they get changed for PE because.. etc'. It's not the royal 'We' as you well know.

I think your pedantry is just another tactic like your massive cut and pastes, your epic essays on floppy penises, and your general histrionics. It doesn't advance your case much at all and makes for boring reading.

 

[monkers]

I've never said I personally am the gatekeeper of every women's jail or rape crisis centre in the country. You know very well what I mean when I say 'We separate 10 year old boys and girls when they get changed for PE because.. etc'. It's not the royal 'We' as you well know.

I think your pedantry is just another tactic like your massive cut and pastes, your epic essays on floppy penises, and your general histrionics. It doesn't advance your case much at all and makes for boring reading.

It is not pedantry to make people aware that you are claiming that individuals have the legal right to exclude people because of the permissible exemptions under the EqA. This is one the things that makes you and other bigots dangerous to know. You really do need to stop spouting this shite once and for all.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I've never claimed individuals have that power. We've spent most of this thread talking about sports, prisons, changing rooms in public amenities, and so on. These are all service providers/institutions/organisations and as such can apply the Equality Act exemptions. Literally nobody has said the likes of 'I can exclude you from the toilets at Rhyl leisure centre if I wish'.

Have a biscuit and a nice cup of tea.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I've never said I personally am the gatekeeper of every women's jail or rape crisis centre in the country. You know very well what I mean when I say 'We separate 10 year old boys and girls when they get changed for PE because.. etc'. It's not the royal 'We' as you well know.

I think your pedantry is just another tactic like your massive cut and pastes, your epic essays on floppy penises, and your general histrionics. It doesn't advance your case much at all and makes for boring reading.

We were separated for changing around that age although, before that, we did PE in our undies - so far as I can recall, before men got to the moon, that was what we did.

Occasionally, if the teacher was absent, boys and girls might have compared the contents of their pants; as you might at 9.

FF to 2023 and one of the 10yo boys identifies as female. Who do they change with?

If changing is communal, as it was in my day, the school has a problem to solve. If they can go into a cubicle, even if it's only got a curtain, less so.

 

[Ian H]

It was more difficult back in the days before modern treatments were available, but they coped.

 

[multitool]

And on that note...


View: https://twitter.com/iamthatiam91/status/1673373101051068422?s=20

 

[icowden]

This comment was especially telling of your thinking, and I was disappointed when I read it.

I think you may have misunderstood it.

First of transgender is not innate - gender identity is innate. Gender identity is not a notion. Gender incongruence is the condition stated by the WHO and the NHS and so many others of a mismatch between sexual identity and gender identity of a person. It is more than just 'a feeling'.

I remain to be convinced of this.

It is not a mental health condition, not a sexually transmitted disease, or any other thing. I understand that the SMEGHEAD codes list it so, but that does not justify the comments you have made.

If it is not a mental health condition, why does it require treatment by mental health services within a mental health trust?

 

[Unkraut]

You've expressed bigoty and now you are posting to defend another bigot.

Isn't the accusation of bigotry a substitute for an actual argument in favour of transgenderism? Reminds me of the tongue-tied proponents on Walsh's thing who wanted to end the interviews.

gender identity is innate.

Isn't the innate claim a cover by transactivists to prevent people from realising the surge in young girls in particular wanting drugs and disfiguring surgery is not a manifestation of something innate but because the idea was planted in their heads by activists, egged on by social media and coupled with attempts to silence those with misgivings?

Those opposing it might be doing so not from a motive of hate but rather love - concern for the harm this is doing.

flat out denialism of trans existence.

I deny it exists!! You are not what you self ID as.

At any rate what is called transitioning can only come about in a society dominated by self love. The worship of self. In this sense it is a manifestation of a much deeper problem, not least a flight from reason.

 

[monkers]

I remain to be convinced of this.

Too bad for you then that you are missing part of your own existence.

 

[monkers]

If it is not a mental health condition, why does it require treatment by mental health services within a mental health trust?

It doesn't.

In the UK the person is required to submit themselves to this in order for the state to recognise their gender identity and amend their birth certificate. This used to be useful for those trans women that wished to marry a man, or those trans men who wished to be married to a woman, but the Same Sex Marriage Act changed that. People can already change their name and their social gender status by deed poll. People can also change their name and social gender status on passports, driving licences, bank accounts etc, all without a GRC. Conversely people can have GRS without going through the state system without ever needing a GRC.

So what does a GRC do? It allows people to die in their acquired gender with their name on the death certificate. That's one reason why a comparatively small proportion of trans people bother with the system.

So it used to be necessary to have a GRC in order to marry somebody of the opposite gender identity, but now that it isn't, there is no sound reason not to simplify the process.


View: https://youtu.be/4RaSCFH7L-E

 

[monkers]

Isn't the accusation of bigotry a substitute for an actual argument in favour of transgenderism?

No it comes from the tedium of having to correct people who continually lie and mischaracterise trans people, and misrepresent the words of other forum posters.

I've posted post after post of facts and rebuttal of blatant lies. My patience is exhausted with bigots, so now I'll simply remind people of the character of some people.