Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

But you ignored the fact that people who don't go along with transgenderism can lose their jobs over this.

It is not a crime to misgender someone. Moreover there are those who refuse to use the 'wrong' pronouns as a matter of conscience. Doing so would be misgendering from their point of view, and confirming someone in a delusion.

People can be ignorant and think of gender identity as a 'delusion' if they wish. It seems hysterical to me though when it comes from the mouth of someone who identifies as a Christian but defends their wish to say shitty things to other people.

The idea of there being a universal God is laughable to me when so much hate is perpetuated by religious groups against both other religious groups, and folk like me who want nothing to do with it. So many of the rest of us just want to live in peace, but you won't let us, and you continue to ram your ideology down our throats - Church of England Schools, Catholic Schools etc.

Misgendering is not a crime in the UK, but it's a really shitty thing to do to someone. But here's the hypocrisy from you, crimes are Man Law, while you are here otherwise at other times advocating God's Law. So which is valid, or do you get to choose on an ad hoc basis?

If you want to say it's not a crime, then you are accepting Man Law, and Article One of the UNDHR has this to say ...

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

This is what is meaningful to me, but I grow tired of hearing hatred of others being spoken, the hypocrisy and the lies. I am not saintly I lash out at adults making ridiculous arguments when they have capacity to do better.

Of those two examples you gave, in the first example, you were not honest about the reason for that teacher being dismissed, you attempted to defend him because he has the same delusion as you.

In the second, the school were justified in having concerns. Schools have an obligation under the law to ensure that their curriculum offer compliant with national curriculum and the directives of the Department of Education. The school were doing their best to be compliant.

I will agree mistakes were made. The legal case was not a retrial. It didn't start at point one, off the blocks. It was an appeal to test if the ET interpreted the arguments soundly - it found they had not. But this does not mean that valid reasonable arguments were available, just that the ones presented were not correctly heard. I happen to agree with the judgement. I also happen to think that the school's lawyers did not use the correct legal arguments. This should not have been a case of pitching the rights of the staff member to hold the view and express them against the rights of the employer, especially as the school did not include adherence to a social media policy within its contract of employment. The school had other avenues it could have explored.

 

[monkers]

Adam and Eve had three sons, and yet we are all descended from them. Sure.

I assume in turn you are joking!

I'd suggest a couple of other words. Mother being one, unalterably different from the concept of being a father, and the complement of man. Physically obviously but in many other ways as well.

Who were the mother and father of Noah?

 

[monkers]

Yeah, harems isn't the best example. It was a sign of progress though that most countries eventually recognised that women needed to be able to be away from men on certain limited occasions. It's regressive that some people no longer think that. Nothing has changed in terms of that need.

Not the best example at all, and certainly not from your perspective since eunochs were used as servants and guards because they were deemed safe around women despite having been born male. 🤣

 

[Deleted member 159]

you continue to ram your ideology down our throats - Church of England Schools, Catholic Schools, Trans-genderism etc

 

[monkers]

'etc' including of course bigotry.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Is it your view that transwomen are a special subset of people to whom the 'I absolutely agree with separate spaces' does not apply?

In a one sentence nutshell that's a reasonable summary, yes. Although I'd say that trans women are subset of women so are in their own space.

 

[Cirrus]

In a one sentence nutshell that's a reasonable summary, yes. Although I'd say that trans women are subset of women so are in their own space.

Transwomen are biologically a sub set of men

 

[Ian H]

Ok, If you agree with the concept of, and need for separate spaces, that need largely being around the comfort and safety of women.

Where do you draw the line as regards who gets access to those particular spaces.?

For trans women is self ID enough?

"I am a woman because I say so"

Or "I have undergone various procedures, or talked to my doctor about disphoria, (for example) so therefore I should have access"

Who decides.??

Fwiw I'm running an event this weekend where women (including trans women ofc) and non binary people are welcomed, but men are not.

The men on the farm (including my male partner) respect this, and will absent themselves.

I think it's highly unlikely that we will get any men turning up and taking the piss by pretending to be trans women, but what would we do if that did happen.??

How would we discern?
Currently it appears there is no socially acceptable way of doing that, without being accused of 'bigotry'

For this to work smoothly, it relies on everyone being 'decent' compassionate, respectful, emotionally intelligent human beings.

Unfortunately, as we know, not the entire world is like that - hence the need for women only spaces in the first place.

I'm not talking about laws here, I'm talking about navigation of a social situation.

I'd suggest that your situation would be not substantially different from any gathering where an individual becomes disruptive. If you need to exclude them you are likely to get some pushback. All you can do is be as tactful as possible and try to ensure you have the support of everyone else in the group. Basically you'd want to handle it the same way as you would any disruptive individual of whatever gender.

 

[monkers]

Is it your view that transwomen are a special subset of people to whom the 'I absolutely agree with separate spaces' does not apply?

Trans women are not cis women. If the sign on the door says 'women' then guess what? Well two things, it doesn't say 'cis women only', and it doesn't say even say 'women only'.

 

[monkers]

Transwomen are biologically a sub set of men

err ... that doesn't work. Try a Venn diagram instead.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Transwomen are biologically a sub set of men

But for practical purposes?

 

[monkers]

But for practical purposes?

'women' and 'men' are not biological classes. Our friend Cirrus has goofed.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Where do you draw the line as regards who gets access to those particular spaces.?

For trans women is self ID enough?

"I am a woman because I say so"

Or "I have undergone various procedures, or talked to my doctor about disphoria, (for example) so therefore I should have access"

Who decides.??

Fwiw I'm running an event this weekend where women (including trans women ofc) and non binary people are welcomed, but men are not.

The men on the farm (including my male partner) respect this, and will absent themselves.

I think it's highly unlikely that we will get any men turning up and taking the piss by pretending to be trans women, but what would we do if that did happen.??

How would we discern?
Currently it appears there is no socially acceptable way of doing that, without being accused of 'bigotry'

For this to work smoothly, it relies on everyone being 'decent' compassionate, respectful, emotionally intelligent human beings.

Unfortunately, as we know, not the entire world is like that - hence the need for women only spaces in the first place.

I'm not talking about laws here, I'm talking about navigation of a social situation.

When you refer to 'self ID' can you explain exactly what you mean?

I'm not trying to be 'clever' or set you a trap I just suspect there's a lack of common understanding of what it means (eg under the Scots bill currently stalled by Westminster).

 

[monkers]

Ok, If you agree with the concept of, and need for separate spaces, that need largely being around the comfort and safety of women.

Where do you draw the line as regards who gets access to those particular spaces.?

For trans women is self ID enough?

"I am a woman because I say so"

Or "I have undergone various procedures, or talked to my doctor about disphoria, (for example) so therefore I should have access"

Who decides.??

Fwiw I'm running an event this weekend where women (including trans women ofc) and non binary people are welcomed, but men are not.

The men on the farm (including my male partner) respect this, and will absent themselves.

I think it's highly unlikely that we will get any men turning up and taking the piss by pretending to be trans women, but what would we do if that did happen.??

How would we discern?
Currently it appears there is no socially acceptable way of doing that, without being accused of 'bigotry'

For this to work smoothly, it relies on everyone being 'decent' compassionate, respectful, emotionally intelligent human beings.

Unfortunately, as we know, not the entire world is like that - hence the need for women only spaces in the first place.

I'm not talking about laws here, I'm talking about navigation of a social situation.

I'd follow the logic of behaviour matters, appearance doesn't. If 'taking the piss' includes disruption, then I'd advise that you avoid the arguments around sex and gender and point to the disruptive behaviour only.

In rather different circumstances, I was once present at an ordinary lunch in a small venue and with my parents. A pisshead was at a nearby table, noisy, generally foul-mouthed and abusive to a member of staff. I happened to be chair of the community centre this was at, and there was some expectation that I'd deal with it.

Without getting up I called across, and in a voice loud enough for everyone to hear said 'Excuse me but I think you're wanted outside'. 'Yeh' came the reply, 'who by'? 'Everyone in here' I said earning me a round of applause. He left.

 

[icowden]

As in they don't have the relevant medical experience. I reject your notion.
If you have a medical concern, would you be happy to be examined by a receptionist or a GP? For me it's a GP.

Well obviously. It doesn't mean that the receptionist is oblivious to the running of the practice or anything medical. At my surgery they collect and process the repeat prescriptions before getting the GP to sign off, for example. Thus they acquire some knowledge about different medications and how they relate to different medical conditions.

Having typed up hundreds of developmental assessments I can tell you pretty much how the assessment is carried out, what tests are involved and what the doctors look for. I couldn't do one, but I do know what happens in them. I also know that Brain Surgeons have the highest concern for those patients who are sitting up chatting immediately after surgery for example having minted a meeting between a Consultant Neurosurgeon and his SHOs/SpRs.

I think we are digressing though.