Gender again. Sorry!

[AndyRM]

Remember when we were taught as kids about odd looking men and not being enticed to go somewhere with them

Now we have to add in men wearing wigs, makeup, dresses and have a deep voice.

It's all very confusing educating our kids against all these different predatory genders.

Good old days- beware of weird men. I suppose that sentence still holds true today

You can f*ck right off with this.

Trolling is one thing, but that's just beyond the pale.

 

[icowden]

Person of a certain gender commits a crime. How does that extrapolate to all persons of said gender are dangerous?

It doesn't. But it does extrapolate to persons of male gender (biological) are more likely to commit certain types of crime than those of female gender (biological). If we are now pretending that men with a piece of official paper are now legally women and must be recorded as such, that starts messing with the stats and messing with the initiatives to tackle certain types of crime. It messes with profiling etc.

This is the same issue where women get cross that transwomen are recorded in the women's category. It's about the ability to fairly compare yourself to other people. It isn't men's world records that are getting wiped out. It's women's. They are the group that is suffering here.

 

[monkers]

It doesn't. But it does extrapolate to persons of male gender (biological) are more likely to commit certain types of crime than those of female gender (biological). If we are now pretending that men with a piece of official paper are now legally women and must be recorded as such, that starts messing with the stats and messing with the initiatives to tackle certain types of crime. It messes with profiling etc.

This is the same issue where women get cross that transwomen are recorded in the women's category. It's about the ability to fairly compare yourself to other people. It isn't men's world records that are getting wiped out. It's women's. They are the group that is suffering here.

We are not pretending - it is a fact of sovereign law for some 20 years now. Do keep up.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Then I suggest you consider priorities. We are all at much greater risk of harm from the thousands of drivers each day who are variously pissed up, drugged up, sleep deprived, suffer from aggrieved entitlement, or driving while on the phone.

Perfectly possible to consider more than one issue at once. We do it all the time. It's nonsense to ignore a thing just because another thing is also a problem.

These are all words used by Andy. You and he have a similar mindset. You don't challenge him for his language - just those you see as opponents. I see you both.

I haven't engaged with him at all. I think correcting his post yesterday was possibly my first interaction. He doesn't pretend to be a serious poster in the debate though whereas you do, though in fact you immediately fall back on personal abuse within a few posts. You can't seem to help yourself. I think you have more in common with Andy.

 

[icowden]

We are not pretending - it is a fact of sovereign law for some 20 years now. Do keep up.

Sorry:-

If we are now pretending that men with a piece of official paper are now actually women and everything about them must be recorded as such, that starts messing with the stats and messing with the initiatives to tackle certain types of crime. It messes with profiling etc.

 

[monkers]

Sorry:-

If we are now pretending that men with a piece of official paper are now actually women and everything about them must be recorded as such, that starts messing with the stats and messing with the initiatives to tackle certain types of crime. It messes with profiling etc.

Sorry it's the law.

Look here, you are somebody who keeps on saying about serious discussion, but keeps posting nonsense.

Sovereign law around this has existed for 20 years now, and international law before that. Trans women with a GRC are women by law. The law also requires you to respect trans women as women and the law. If you require people to respect your beliefs, then in return you must respect theirs. The problem is that you don't. You think that is my problem, but it is not, it is yours.

The law allows you to hold a different belief. The law also allows you to express your beliefs, but the state does not set out to indemnify you from all consequences, especially those pesky legal consequences.

 

[monkers]

Perfectly possible to consider more than one issue at once. We do it all the time. It's nonsense to ignore a thing just because another thing is also a problem.



I haven't engaged with him at all. I think correcting his post yesterday was possibly my first interaction. He doesn't pretend to be a serious poster in the debate though whereas you do, though in fact you immediately fall back on personal abuse within a few posts. You can't seem to help yourself. I think you have more in common with Andy.

I think you have plenty in common with Andy which is why you don't engage with him; you don't see him as an opponent. Both of you seek out opponents.

 

[AndyRM]

I think you have plenty in common with Andy which is why you don't engage with him; you don't see him as an opponent. Both of you seek out opponents.

Mr Always Right is barely an opponent to be fair.

 

[icowden]

Sovereign law around this has existed for 20 years now, and international law before that. Trans women with a GRC are women by law. The law also requires you to respect trans women as women and the law. If you require people to respect your beliefs, then in return you must respect theirs. The problem is that you don't. You think that is my problem, but it is not, it is yours.

It's not about belief. I don't believe that transwomen are not women. I don't need to believe that. Their DNA will show that they are not women.
The law is that they can live as women and be treated as women and states that we should respect that they want to live that way. It also provides that legally they should be treated as women, except where there are other legal precedents that say they should not.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Look here, you are somebody who keeps on saying about serious discussion, but keeps posting nonsense.

Sovereign law around this has existed for 20 years now, and international law before that. Trans women with a GRC are women by law. The law also requires you to respect trans women as women and the law. If you require people to respect your beliefs, then in return you must respect theirs.

There's no requirement in law to respect anybody's beliefs about anything. There are laws about discrimination and there are laws about criminal offences. Trans people have the same protection under the law as anyone else. You are no more required by law to respect transwomen as women than you are to respect the Pope as God's representative on earth. These are metaphysical beliefs; the right to hold them is protected, the right not to be discriminated against because of them is protected. The law does not compel someone personally to respect those beliefs.

The EHRC has made it clear that having a GRC does nor override the single sex exemptions allowed by the Equality Act. We have been over this a dozen times.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...le-sex-and-gender-reassignment-discrimination

 

[monkers]

It's not about belief. I don't believe that transwomen are not women. I don't need to believe that. Their DNA will show that they are not women.
The law is that they can live as women and be treated as women and states that we should respect that they want to live that way. It also provides that legally they should be treated as women, except where there are other legal precedents that say they should not.

We agree on this. So when you are saying that 'we are pretending' that they are legally women when you've just said that they are legally women, what do you mean? These are the kind of circular arguments that keep being generated. Trans women with a GRC are not just legally women, but legally female too.

 

[icowden]

We agree on this. So when you are saying that 'we are pretending' that they are legally women when you've just said that they are legally women, what do you mean?

That was a typo. I meant to say that we are pretending that they are women and giving them the legal entitlement to be recognised as such. Biologically, until some huge advance in science allows is to live like Iain M Bank's Culture, they remain men.

These are the kind of circular arguments that keep being generated. Trans women with a GRC are not just legally women, but legally female too.

And the issue is that they are not, so in some circumstances that legal position that they have gained must be countermanded by something which protects people born female. This is evidence in sports amongst other arenas.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Then I suggest you consider priorities. We are all at much greater risk of harm from the thousands of drivers each day who are variously pissed up, drugged up, sleep deprived, suffer from aggrieved entitlement, or driving while on the phone.

How is that a counterargument for gender identity? I agree they should be much better checks on if drivers are actually qualified to drive and/or using their phone during driving, but that is an separate issue.
It just like saying, everyone is an dressed up at some point in their life so why bother about transgenders. I also don't think you have the right to decide for others where their priorities should lie, and yes i understand @AuroraSaab doesn't want to repeat what she already did hunderds of pages ago, just because you get abusive if you don't like the answer.

I also understand where @AuroraSaab is coming from i don't have a problem with transgender people but i can understand women can have issues with transgender persons in women only spaces.

While the government love to portray trans people as freaks and deviants who are damaging society, they simultaneously protect drivers while knowing that few drive well enough to be within the law.

I have never seen something like that from the goverment, are we talking about the same country?

'War on woke' versus 'war on drivers'. Kinda relevant on a cycling forum dontcha think?

No the daily fail writes titles like that everytime a what they call pro-cycle law/meausement/whatever is announced

AS will be keen to tell you that the predatory sex is men. Do you not fit into that group?

Yes let me also tell you something else, i have no doubts there are enough predatory men desperate enough to pretend to be transgender to abuse women. How would you prevent that from happening?

 

[monkers]

How is that a counterargument for gender identity? I agree they should be much better checks on if drivers are actually qualified to drive and/or using their phone during driving, but that is an separate issue.
It just like saying, everyone is an dressed up at some point in their life so why bother about transgenders. I also don't think you have the right to decide for others where their priorities should lie, and yes i understand @AuroraSaab doesn't want to repeat what she already did hunderds of pages ago, just because you get abusive if you don't like the answer.

I also understand where @AuroraSaab is coming from i don't have a problem with transgender people but i can understand women can have issues with transgender persons in women only spaces.

I have never seen something like that from the goverment, are we talking about the same country?


No the daily fail writes titles like that everytime a what they call pro-cycle law/meausement/whatever is announced


Yes let me also tell you something else, i have no doubts there are enough predatory men desperate enough to pretend to be transgender to abuse women. How would you prevent that from happening?

Not that it's any of my business, but I'm curious, and you don't have to answer, but are you still living in the UK?

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Not that it's any of my business, but I'm curious, and you don't have to answer, but are you still living in the UK?

Yes i'm not gonna move all off the sudden.