Gender again. Sorry!

[Bromptonaut]

Man up Brompton - from a GC point of view you were being more than a bit arrogant and got called out for it.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that I want to become Simone. I don't. I was setting out, for the benefit of @icowden, who asked what a GRC is for, how the system works right now.

I understand that @AuroraSaab and others on her side of the aisle would have it different but I don't think I'm wrong as regards law/practice right now.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Nobody gives a toss how anybody else lives their life as long as it doesn't impinge on others. The EHRC have made it clear that GRC holders are still subject to the exemptions allowed in the Equality Act when it is legitimate and proportionate.

View attachment 5112



Only by people like you and Stonewall who dislike that it refuses to be influenced by activists.


The arguments stand or fall on their own merits. You can undermine yours by posting personal abuse if you like.

I agree that that's what the Commission have said in advice. I'm less convinced about there being a circumstance where it would be legitimate and proportionate to go behind a properly issued GRC/new birth certificate.

The bolded bit has broken my irony meter - again.

 

[CXRAndy]

but I don't think I'm wrong as regards law/practice right now.

No need to lay awake worrying about it

Nobody cares that much what you think

 

[monkers]

No need to lay awake worrying about it

Nobody cares that much what you think

You are in correct. I am not 'nobody'. Mr B makes very articulate and well-reasoned points. But as for you, well dross doesn't begin to describe it. You are simply a troll, devoid of all reason, no more, no less.

 

[monkers]

I agree that that's what the Commission have said in advice. I'm less convinced about there being a circumstance where it would be legitimate and proportionate to go behind a properly issued GRC/new birth certificate.

The bolded bit has broken my irony meter - again.

That is one reason the Commission are now under investigation again, and likely to have their status downgraded.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/equality-and-human-rights-commission-ehrc

 

[icowden]

That is one reason the Commission are now under investigation again, and likely to have their status downgraded.

Why "likely". The EHRC have already said:

We have already written to the committee to highlight inaccuracies in the submissions made against us and to strongly reject claims that we are not compliant with the Paris principles. We take great pride in our independence from government and continue to demonstrate our impartiality through our willingness to robustly challenge them.

Or do you just believe everything Stonewall says?

 

[icowden]

Biology is just one measure of what a person is. It’s not the only tool in the box. We are conscious and social animals, not simply soft machines.

But it's quite an important one really. Specifically the word "woman" pertains to those human beings with XX chromosomes who have the biological design* to produce babies. "Man" pertains to those human beings with XY chromosomes who have the biological design to produce sperm. We have evolved over millions of years so that the XY design also confers greater strength and size as the XX design has become specialised for a long period of nurture of few children.

If you get taken ill and go to hospital, the Doctors will want to know whether you are an XX female or an XY male. They couldn't give a stuff whether you think you are something else. They need to know the design of your body and any medications you are taking. That's it.

SO whilst I agree with you that we are conscious and social animals, I think we should question the use of medical techniques to try to make someone look like someone that they are not, and spend more time working with that consciousness to find out why they are so unable to tolerate the body that they were born with. If their only way forward is to live as what they think the opposite sex lives like, that's also fine. There is nothing wrong with being supportive. At the moment it seems (to me) to be going to far, and into the realms of denial of reality.

*Note: design is not the same as capability. A woman with a faulty reproductive system is still a woman. Neither a man nor a woman have to produce babies. It's not compulsory.

 

[monkers]

Why "likely". The EHRC have already said:

Or do you just believe everything Stonewall says?

I'm not a member of Stonewall. Neither do I know precisely what they have said. I do read the statements from the Good Law Project. It is clear that Faulkner was a political appointment and that there has been further political interference and intervention.

There is some irony that the EHRC defended a challenge that their guidance was incorrect. After successfully defending it before Mr Justice Henshaw, they then changed it to align more with the wishes of the complainant in such a manner that it no longer was compliant with the EqA. That is a point that will take imaginative defence.

Further I do know that the grade A status of the EHRC at one point had been removed already. It was reinstated after the EHRC promised to comply. They haven't. Complaints including one from Stonewall were made.

As a result a special emergency review is taking place. This failure to comply (even though Faulkner denies it) will compromise the status of the EHRC if found. Obviously we'll need to see the outcomes.

Therefore the word 'likely' is a public opinion and one which I share. You can bet the other way if you wish.

 

[newfhouse]

Specifically the word "woman" pertains to those human beings with XX chromosomes

I say that is not and has never been the only viable use of the word.

 

[monkers]

Specifically the word "woman" pertains to those human beings with XX chromosomes who have the biological design* to produce babies.

It doesn't. We are already have words for that and they are pervasive in this thread; used by you in fact - 'biologically female'. Some biologically female women whose chromosomes are not XX have 'produced babies'. Typically females are XX and typically they are women because they typically are congruent. Same for XY people, ie biologically male, and happening to be men.

It is not only society that creates diversity nature does it too. While people generally accept that nature creates diversity, but dislike it when society does so. Why should some people dislike diversity when nature itself creates it?

There are those of you on this thread who do not accept trans people but make statements such as 'women think differently to men'. Is thinking a binary too? If my niece thinks differently to me about herself, are you saying that her thinking must be wrong? Are you advocating thought policing people? Advocating conversion therapies? Will this thought policing and advocacy of conversion affect me as a gay woman?

If women don't think like men, then should it needs to recognised that people who are chromosomally not XY, who do not think like men, but think like women - what could we call such a condition? Gender incongruence? That being the case, do we ignore the brain as biology and concentrate on genitalia and gametes, the invisible factors such as DNA, and chromosomes?

When we die, the determination of death is brain death, not determined by any of the factors you and others love to repeat. So in this binary advocacy, does the brain trump genitals, or are the genitals 'just everything'?

 

[icowden]

Some biologically female women whose chromosomes are not XX have 'produced babies'.

I think this is very arguable. A handful of people with XY have taken a donor egg and been able to grow it in a uterus which they do have because they have not developed properly and are infertile. However almost all XY people with this condition have neither ovaries, nor uterus but do have undescended testes. Which makes them biologically male even if they are presenting externally as female.

The point is that these are exceptions to the biological design. Nature is based on reproduction. That's how we got here in the first place. You reproduce and those offspring best suited to survival reproduce etc.

If women don't think like men, then should it needs to recognised that people who are chromosomally not XY, who do not think like men, but think like women - what could we call such a condition?

I'm not following this at all. If you are not XY you are woman and thus think like a woman (if that's even a thing).

So in this binary advocacy, does the brain trump genitals, or are the genitals 'just everything'?

I haven't mentioned genitals. I mentioned DNA - specifically the X and Y chromosomes.

 

[icowden]

I say that is not and has never been the only viable use of the word.

Of course not. Historically it has been used to denigrate men as inferior and or weak.

But the definition of woman is an adult female human being. Female denotes the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Of course not. Historically it has been used to denigrate men as inferior and or weak.

But the definition of woman is an adult female human being. Female denotes the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes.

Your definition.

Not mine.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not a member of Stonewall. Neither do I know precisely what they have said. I do read the statements from the Good Law Project.

The Good Law Project has lost at least 40% of their cases so I'm not sure the involvement of Jolyon Maughan's outfit is necessarily a sign that the case has merit. So far they've had to pay the government £540k in costs for failed cases.

It is clear that Faulkner was a political appointment and that there has been further political interference and intervention.

It doesn't seem to bother you that the previous head of the EHRC was David Isaac, the former head of Stonewall. Kishwer Faulkner was Director of International Affairs and Director of Policy for the Lib Dems. She's a Lib Dem peer not a Tory.

The rest is your opinion.

 

[monkers]

The Good Law Project has lost at least 40% of their cases so I'm not sure the involvement of Jolyon Maughan's outfit is necessarily a sign that the case has merit. So far they've had to pay the government £540k in costs for failed cases.


It doesn't seem to bother you that the previous head of the EHRC was David Isaac, the former head of Stonewall. Kishwer Faulkner was Director of International Affairs and Director of Policy for the Lib Dems. She's a Lib Dem peer not a Tory.

The rest is your opinion.

The Good Law project do lose some cases, and some elements of some cases; that does not mean that when they send the court documents to my inbox that they are a bad source.

David Isaac was not a political appointee. Faulkner was and remains so. That is not an opinion. Truss appointed Faulkner against a background of shock and surprise that this was done. The Tories have been directly influencing and interfering with the work of the EHRC; therefore it has lost its independence - a point made by those that have worked there. This is fact, not opinion.

Being a Lib Dem is in no way a guarantee that she is or isn't GC. GCs exist in all parties. The Lib Dems just seem to have fewer of them.

You support Faulkner because she holds opinions that you strongly support. There is an abundance of evidence on this thread.

Seriously who would defend an application for Judicial Review, win and then proceed to change the guidance in such a way that it becomes incompatible with the EqA? Faulkner is the government's sock puppet, who in turn is a sock puppet to Murdoch.

Anyway, we'll see what the special investigation fetches out and the eventual outcome.