Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

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.

Trans women with a GRC are legally female, and legally a woman. Making babies or even trying to make babies is not an essential part of being female or being a woman.

I have never tried to 'bake a baby' as somebody here once phrased it. I have no idea what my chromosomes are, or what my DNA might say about me. I have no idea if ever I had the potential to bake a baby. I'm a gay woman.

Do you know I've been biting my tongue all these months, because not only have you been using insulting language to trans people of which my niece is one, you have been arguing on the basis of my own being, You say that I am only a woman if I'm a female and woman if I have or ever had the potential to bake babies. If not then I am only a female and a woman because you might permit me to use those terms.

I'm tired of biting my tongue. I must now say what I have been tempted to say to you all along - go fark yourself you absolute sexist farking moron, and stick your definitions up your arse. Twat.

 

[Deleted member 159]

So you supported EHRC before Faulkner because the head was a trans activist.

Now the head is more in line with general society, this doesn't sit nicely with your personal opinions

 

[monkers]

So you supported EHRC before Faulkner because the head was a trans activist.

Now the head is more in line with general society, this doesn't sit nicely with your personal opinions

I didn't say that Twatface.

 

[Deleted member 159]

I'm tired of biting my tongue. I must now say what I have been tempted to say to you all along - go fark yourself you absolute sexist farking moron, and stick your definitions up your arse. Twat.

Calm down 🐅

 

[Deleted member 159]

I didn't say that Twatface.

It's implied

 

[monkers]

Calm down 🐅

And another sexist moron decides he simply must get involved.

 

[monkers]

It's implied

Only to the terminally stupid.

 

[Deleted member 159]

And another sexist moron decides he simply must get involved.

Relax, calm down, it's not good to get so riled up over such trivial matters

 

[Bromptonaut]

So you supported EHRC before Faulkner because the head was a trans activist.

Now the head is more in line with general society, this doesn't sit nicely with your personal opinions

Can you support that assertion with proper evidence?

And no, being previous chair of Stonewall is not evidence.

 

[AuroraSaab]

David Isaac was not a political appointee. Faulkner was and remains so. That is not an opinion.

Faulkner was appointed in the same way as every other head of the EHRC, including David Issac. Whilst Isaac was head Stonewall had more influence than was appropriate. The job of the EHRC is to advise on how to balance rights, not to work for the interests of one group over others.

The EHRC has quite rightly cut ties with Stonewall. No government organisation should be operating at the behest of any campaign groups.

 

[monkers]

Relax, calm down, it's not good to get so riled up over such trivial matters

Faulkner was appointed in the same way as every other head of the EHRC, including David Issac. Whilst Isaac was head Stonewall had more influence than was appropriate. The job of the EHRC is to advise on how to balance rights, not to work for the interests of one group over others.

The EHRC has quite rightly cut ties with Stonewall. No government organisation should be operating at the behest of any campaign groups.

I have explained to you extensively, with quotes, and with links.

The guidance that Faulkner inherited was lawful. A GC challenge was brought by asking for a judicial review. The admission was refused. Mr Justice Henshaw rejected the complainant's opinion that the guidance was incompatible with the EqA. It was rejected on all counts with Henshaw going so far to comment about the absurdity of the complainant's legal argument.

You present the same arguments here. Henshaw therefore is tantamount to calling your arguments absurd.


Faulkner has now changed the guidance. Measured against Henshaw it is no longer compatible with the EqA. Therefore the 'rebalancing' is not compliant with the law. People have noticed, complaints have been made, and are now being heard.

Faulkner will have the opportunity to represent the EHRC and herself. We can say more when we see the outcomes of the special investigation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Can you support that assertion with proper evidence?

And no, being previous chair of Stonewall is not evidence.

I wouldn't call Isaac a transactivist but as a former head of Stonewall he allowed them to have undue influence.

These are emails between Stonewall and EHRC that had to be divulged in the Maya Forstater case. There are others.

Here's Stonewall asking to be allowed to review drafts of EHRC guidance before they were published for everybody else:

Here's Stonewall sweating a bit that FOI access to the minutes of their meetings with EHRC will make them look bad:

Here's Stonewall looking for regular meetings with the EHRC to promote their views:

No other group has been allowed this influence and access. I can't imagine a Muslim group looking for regular access to the EHRC being accommodated or a disability rights groups being allowed to see EHRC documents before publication.

The EHRC has to balance all groups rights. They shouldn't be this open to lobbying from any special interest group.

 

[icowden]

Trans women with a GRC are legally female, and legally a woman. Making babies or even trying to make babies is not an essential part of being female or being a woman.

No. The ability to produce eggs in order to gestate a baby is literally what defines a female. Female comes from Femina (Latin) which means woman. A piece of paper does not magically do anything. Yes, Transwomen with a GRC are legally female, but that is largely meaningless. They cannot produce eggs nor gestate babies and they still have an XX chromosome. They will still be treated as men when they go into hospital because their entire biology is male.

You say that I am only a woman if I'm a female and woman if I have or ever had the potential to bake babies. If not then I am only a female and a woman because you might permit me to use those terms.

Nope. Nothing to do with permission and everything to do with a dictionary definition.

I'm tired of biting my tongue. I must now say what I have been tempted to say to you all along - go fark yourself you absolute sexist farking moron, and stick your definitions up your arse. Twat.

Do you say that to all the dictionaries? This has nothing to do with sexism. In biology, Female is solely related to the biological ability to produce an egg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female

 

[icowden]

Your definition.
Not mine.

The definition in all reputable dictionaries. Not mine.

 

[monkers]

I wouldn't call Isaac a transactivist but as a former head of Stonewall he allowed them to have undue influence.

These are emails between Stonewall and EHRC that had to be divulged in the Maya Forstater case. There are others.

Here's Stonewall asking to be allowed to review drafts of EHRC guidance before they were published for everybody else:
View attachment 5116
Here's Stonewall sweating a bit that FOI access to the minutes of their meetings with EHRC will make them look bad:
View attachment 5117
Here's Stonewall looking for regular meetings with the EHRC to promote their views:
View attachment 5118

No other group has been allowed this influence and access. I can't imagine a Muslim group looking for regular access to the EHRC being accommodated or a disability rights groups being allowed to see EHRC documents before publication.

The EHRC has to balance all groups rights. They shouldn't be this open to lobbying from any special interest group.

And now look at the dates - years after David Isaac was at Stonewall.

David Isaac was not only not a trans activist but Stonewall did not represent trans people in any significant way - there was some involvement because of intersectionality, but Stonewall were not officially representing trans people.

Isaac was there from 2003 to 2012. Stonewall did not begin to represent trans people until 2015 with the arrival of Ruth Hunt.

The appointment process was introduced in 2006 or so. What marks Faulkner out as a 'political appointment' is that the government were stomping around declaring everything is 'woke'. We are anti-woke, we will stop the wokeness. They made a political appointment of a person known to them to have GC views. Staff at the EHRC have said that they know Faulkner to be GC. The modification of the guidelines, although non-statutory were issued despite Henshaw. To be clear, the rejection of a judicial review does not set legal precedent, but Henshaw's analysis remains useful.

Almost inevitably someone will say that is just Henshaw's opinion is just woke, everyone knows all of the judiciary are variously 'enemies of the people', 'all lefties', or just 'woke' (which is true - they generally are enlightened).