Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

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.

You've never bitten your tongue, this is the language you've used from early on.

You're an adult. You know whether your chromosomes are XX or XY. You know which reproductive pathway your body developed along in utero, because there are only two options.

You have to use the language of obfuscation and claim biology doesn't matter because it's the only way of pretending that the category 'Woman' can include men, or 'Man' can include women.

Mr Justice Henshaw rejected the complainant's opinion that the guidance was incompatible with the EqA.

I have no idea why you keep mentioning Henshaw. It's decision to refuse someone a judicial review is not a binding ruling for other judgements. It sets no precedent. If the same case came up again a different judge might find the arguments more persuasive and make a different ruling.

 

[monkers]

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.


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


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

It's everything to do with you sexism. Do I have to prove to you that I once I had the ability to produce eggs in order to gestate a baby before I can call myself female? You are quite mad.

Words have meaning and are read in context. Words frequently have more that one meaning, as you lot discovered yesterday. The word 'innate' didn't mean what you thought it could only mean.

Trans women are women, the law tells us so. The law does not define trans women as cis women or vice versa. It says that both groups are women.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The definition in all reputable dictionaries. Not mine.

Dictionaries don't go into your level of detail and while the stuff about gametes etc is in the definition of female it's crystal clear that some women, for whatever reason, lack them.

A birth certificate saying female is surely conclusive.

 

[monkers]

You've never bitten your tongue, this is the language you've used from early on.

You're an adult. You know whether your chromosomes are XX or XY. You know which reproductive pathway your body developed along in utero, because there are only two options.

You have to use the language of obfuscation and claim biology doesn't matter because it's the only way of pretending that the category 'Woman' can include men, or 'Man' can include women.




I have no idea why you keep mentioning Henshaw. It's decision to refuse someone a judicial review is not a binding ruling for other judgements. It sets no precedent. If the same case came up again a different judge might find the arguments more persuasive and make a different ruling.

Listen idiot. Biology matters. Biology is very important especially for healthcare But biology isn't the only important thing. Human rights are important too. Biology is pretty irrelevant in an argument about toilets; instead that is concerned with human rights. Try not to confuse the two.

The law recognises biology as a protected characteristic, but parliament has legislated to balance those rights. Equity cases heard in courts are balancing acts. Blanket bans are not a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim - they are unlawful and every court case to challenge that view has led to the same outcome. Blanket bans are unlawful under human rights. You can not lawfully deny trans women with a GRC access to single sex spaces.

Henshaw is important because he sets out that not only can you not exclude trans women with a GRC, you can not lawfully blanket ban tran people without a GRC because they still have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

None of which is my opinion of what I think is best - it is a factual account of the law.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Dictionaries don't go into your level of detail and while the stuff about gametes etc is in the definition of female it's crystal clear that some women, for whatever reason, lack them. A birth certificate saying female is surely conclusive.

That's just bonkers. The fact that 50% of the 80 billion people on the planet have bodies that developed down one of 2 possible reproductive pathways, and the other 50% have bodies that developed down the other pathway, isn't enough to make meaningful categories of what constitutes male and female .... but a piece of paper is?

What sex are the millions of people in the developing world who have no birth certificate? Whose birth was not recorded anywhere?

What sex were the billions upon billions of humans born before writing developed? I'm willing to guess what 50% were, and what the other 50% were too.

 

[monkers]

That's just bonkers. The fact that 50% of the 80 billion people on the planet have bodies that developed down one of 2 possible reproductive pathways, and the other 50% have bodies that developed down the other pathway, isn't enough to make meaningful categories of what constitutes male and female .... but a piece of paper is?

What sex are the millions of people in the developing world who have no birth certificate? Whose birth was not recorded anywhere?

What sex were the billions upon billions of humans born before writing developed? I'm willing to guess what 50% were, and what the other 50% were too.

In your opinion. Sometimes we have to look for the ways that enable all of us to live in peace. It's impossible to build inclusive communities, no matter what their size, unless we are sophisticated enough to reach acceptance of others. The exception perhaps being not accepting those individuals who have been found to have intended to cause harm to others.

 

[newfhouse]

A piece of paper does not magically do anything.

And neither does a dictionary.

everything to do with a dictionary definition.

Oh.

In biology

What a narrow, conservative, and unimaginative world you seem to inhabit. Biology is all well and good but I don’t feel the need to think about it much when I’m trying to have everyday human interactions. I mean, I went to the library this morning and asked about a book I’d ordered. Should I have enquired about the state of the librarian’s gametes too?

 

[monkers]

And neither does a dictionary.


Oh.


What a narrow, conservative, and unimaginative world you seem to inhabit. Biology is all well and good but I don’t feel the need to think about it much when I’m trying to have everyday human interactions. I mean, I went to the library this morning and asked about a book I’d ordered. Should I have enquired about the state of the librarian’s gametes too?

No you should have stood there with turkey baster in hand demanding biological proof and access to their medical records.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Listen idiot.

You really can't be doing with people not agreeing with you. It's very childish to resort to insults when you don't get your own way.

The only human rights that concern you are those of men who identify as women. Other people have rights too.

You can not lawfully deny trans women with a GRC access to single sex spaces.

Yes, you can. The EHRC have made it clear you can.

Henshaw is important because he sets out that not only can you not exclude trans women with a GRC, you can not lawfully blanket ban tran people without a GRC because they still have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

It was a refusal for a judicial review not a ruling on those issues. It isn't binding. On a different day a different judge may have a different opinion. It doesn't overrule other UK law, the EA, or EHRC guidance.

None of which is my opinion of what I think is best - it is a factual account of the law.

No, it's your interpretation, which again and again you present as fact. And when you are proved wrong with links or evidence you say it's because the EHRC are biased, or it doesn't matter anyway because the EU, UN, or the flipping Fedration of Planets or whatever, have some vague pronouncement that you think should take precedence over UK legislation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Biology is all well and good but I don’t feel the need to think about it much when I’m trying to have everyday human interactions.

Do you think that might be because you're a man?

I mean, I went to the library this morning and asked about a book I’d ordered. Should I have enquired about the state of the librarian’s gametes too?

No because it's not relevant. If your daughter was disabled and needed intimate washing and care, would you be happy with an adult male giving that? Or would you and your wife not 'enquire about the gametes', ie ask the sex, of the care provider?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Yes, you can. The EHRC have made it clear you can.

So far as I can see they've said that it such a restriction might possible if it were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I don't think anyone has said what legitimate aim might justify such action.

Are you aware of such a restriction in actual UK real life?

 

[classic33]

That's just bonkers. The fact that 50% of the 80 billion people on the planet have bodies that developed down one of 2 possible reproductive pathways, and the other 50% have bodies that developed down the other pathway, isn't enough to make meaningful categories of what constitutes male and female .... but a piece of paper is?

What sex are the millions of people in the developing world who have no birth certificate? Whose birth was not recorded anywhere?

What sex were the billions upon billions of humans born before writing developed? I'm willing to guess what 50% were, and what the other 50% were too.

The population of the world in billions is the total number of humans currently living on the planet1. According to the United Nations and Worldometer, the world population reached 8 billion in mid-November 2022.

I have to ask this, but what planet are you living on?

For what is supposed to be a live update on the population see,
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/?ref=curiocial.com

 

[monkers]

You really can't be doing with people not agreeing with you. It's very childish to resort to insults when you don't get your own way.

The only human rights that concern you are those of men who identify as women. Other people have rights too.


Yes, you can. The EHRC have made it clear you can.


It was a refusal for a judicial review not a ruling on those issues. It isn't binding. On a different day a different judge may have a different opinion. It doesn't overrule other UK law, the EA, or EHRC guidance.


No, it's your interpretation, which again and again you present as fact. And when you are proved wrong with links or evidence you say it's because the EHRC are biased, or it doesn't matter anyway because the EU, UN, or the flipping Fedration of Planets or whatever, have some vague pronouncement that you think should take precedence over UK legislation.

No I have been routinely insulted and taunted. People here know that I raised a trans child. Maybe you think it courteous to bang on about trans women being freaky perverts with beards and testicles, but I can't think of anything more shitty quite frankly. These are not the kinds of interactions that mark out a civilised or sophisticated country. Then to deny transphobia is simply laughable.

I am upset today, and I admit it. Today is the third day of the trial into the killing of Brianna Ghey. I can not prevent myself from placing myself in the position of her mother and others who loved her. Such an awful thing. The messages being read out between the two defendants remind me of the attitudes here, and they disgust me.

What I don't need are contributions from Twatty McTwat face and others parroting the kinds of bigotry that were contained in those interactions.

I'm hurting, and some of you are enjoying it.

In my mind this campaign of hate led against innocent people by people with hate in their hearts is trickling down to children. People are being hurt. My niece had her house and car attacked - we know how this feels.

My niece is legally female and legally a woman. She is a trans woman, not a cis woman. This is the system that sophisticated civil societies work with in other countries with success. The UK has become TERF islands. People are being radicalised and this stinking government are at the heart of it. Never have I seen my country in such an awful mess. Everything turning to rat shoot. I'm appalled.

 

[classic33]

You really can't be doing with people not agreeing with you. It's very childish to resort to insults when you don't get your own way.

The only human rights that concern you are those of men who identify as women. Other people have rights too.


Yes, you can. The EHRC have made it clear you can.


It was a refusal for a judicial review not a ruling on those issues. It isn't binding. On a different day a different judge may have a different opinion. It doesn't overrule other UK law, the EA, or EHRC guidance.


No, it's your interpretation, which again and again you present as fact. And when you are proved wrong with links or evidence you say it's because the EHRC are biased, or it doesn't matter anyway because the EU, UN, or the flipping Fedration of Planets or whatever, have some vague pronouncement that you think should take precedence over UK legislation.

You're quite handy with the insults yourself, having been on the receiving end of yours gives me the right to say this.
Take another look in the mirror before replying.

 

[newfhouse]

Do you think that might be because you're a man?

It’s possible but that doesn’t explain why the women I’m closest to also express similar thoughts. Am I a bad influence on them?

If your daughter was disabled and needed intimate washing and care, would you be happy with an adult male giving that? Or would you and your wife not 'enquire about the gametes', ie ask the sex, of the care provider?

My daughter is a capable adult. As her parents our feelings are neither here nor there, but from previous chats around the topic of male midwifery I think she’d be cool with it as long as she liked the caregiver.

I’m seeing her tomorrow; if the conversation moves in that direction I will ask her and report back. No promises.