Gender again. Sorry!

[Deleted member 159]

Monkers denying biological reality

 

[monkers]

No. The truth is that a biological male cannot become a biological female and vice versa. It cannot be done. It's impossible at present and would involve completely recoding the DNA of every cell in the body.

On the other hand it is perfectly possible to pass a law that says all apples are oranges. That's just paper.

You know what the distinction is, and to what Andy and Aurora refer.
To you is a sense of winning more important than establishing truth?

Here's you twisting the argument again.

The law does not say that a 'biological male' can become a 'biological female' (or vice versa). Neither have I ever said that is the case. You know this, but somehow you think venting this bogus argument will win - it will not.

When you begin to concentrate on what it is said to you, instead of spouting off bigotry, then I will listen. The law says that a person with a GRC has that gender identity before the law, and the law will protect the person with that gender identity.

The law has never been 'just paper'. However I will grant you that present government's attempts to legislate their nonsense would be so. We must hope they fail.

 

[monkers]

Monkers denying biological reality

View attachment 5757

Moron.

 

[multitool]

Monkers denying biological reality

View attachment 5757

She isn't.

You are either too thick to realise it, or think that everyone else is.

Either way, you are exceedingly thick, and the only person you are embarrassing is actually yourself.

 

[AuroraSaab]

UK law says people should be treated as their chosen sex (in certain circumstances) if they wish to be. That's all.

As we all know, the law doesn't necessarily reflect scientific or rational truth either now or historically. As expected, any contradiction is met with the predictable descent into histrionics and a public unravelling aimed at discouraging further posts.

 

[monkers]

UK law says people should be treated as their chosen sex (in certain circumstances) if they wish to be. That's all.

Rubbish and you know it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You keep saying this, yet the EHRC has clarified that this is the case. You don't like this so you continue to pretend otherwise. If it's illegal to treat men who identify as women differently from women in all circumstances, why is Emily Bridges having to sue to be allowed in Women's events? Why is it legal to advertise certain posts for either male or female applicants only, and exclude those who are not biologically that sex?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

I'm not going over the Equality Act for the 100th time but your endless pretence that this isn't the law is increasingly ridiculous. It's simply an attempt to make casual readers think they have to accept the opposite sex in all single sex services and spaces when they don't.

 

[monkers]

You keep saying this, yet the EHRC has clarified that this is the case. You don't like this so you continue to pretend otherwise. If it's illegal to treat men who identify as women differently from women in all circumstances, why is Emily Bridges having to sue to be allowed in Women's events? Why is it legal to advertise certain posts for either male or female applicants only, and exclude those who are not biologically that sex?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...-single-sex-services-if-justifiable-says-ehrc

I'm not going over the Equality Act for the 100th time but your endless pretence that this isn't the law is increasingly ridiculous. It's simply an attempt to make casual readers think they have to accept the opposite sex in all single sex services and spaces when they don't.

The EHRC are not the law. As it now well reported the EHRC are not impartial.

Getting back to this nonsense ...

UK law says people should be treated as their chosen sex (in certain circumstances) if they wish to be. That's all.

UK law says no such thing. The EqA says that people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (not 'chosen sex') ...). Neither does the law say 'in certain circumstances'.

This is what the government have previously said in a bulletin ...

The Government is clear that there will be no change to the Equality Act 2010, which allows service providers to offer separate services to males and females, or to one sex only, subject to certain criteria. These services can treat people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment differently, or exclude them completely, but only where the action taken is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Importantly, a service provider’s starting point should be to treat a trans person in the gender they identify with, and to allow them to access services for that gender unless by doing so they would be unable to provide that service to other service users. This means it can’t be a blanket ban, or done on a whim. It has to be for a real reason, on a case by case basis. For example a female only domestic violence refuge may provide a separate service to a trans woman if it can be shown there is a detriment to other service users from including the trans woman as part of the regular service. If they then have to exclude that trans person, they ought to consider what alternatives they can offer to the trans person. This has been the law since 2010 and will not change.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The law is an ass

More correctly the law is a hass....

 

[monkers]

More correctly the law is a hass....

I think he knows and works as a legal advocado.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The EHRC are not the law. As it now well reported the EHRC are not impartial.

That's your opinion. Not shared by others. The EHRC interpret the Equality Act and have made it clear that exclusion is allowable in certain situations.

This is what the government have previously said in a bulletin ...

Jeez. Your own quote literally confirms what I have said a hundred times on here - single sex services and spaces are legal when it is justified and proportionate.

There is no individual case by case requirement. A women's refuge doesn't have to assess each individual transwoman for admission. It's enough to say they only serve women and are applying the EA regulations and excluding all men, however they identify.

I'd like the link for that 'government bulletin' so I can read it for myself. It doesn't really sound like a cut and paste from an official statement.

 

[monkers]

The EHRC interpret the Equality Act and have made it clear that exclusion is allowable in certain situations.

That I do not dispute. The EHRC made a statement of advice, but you need to remember that the advice was non-statutory and not compliant with the law or in agreement with the Government's own Equalities Office.

Now reading the statement that you made - your wording was not just incorrect, but chosen so as to play down the reality of the legal position. It is not the case the trans rights need just to be respected under certain condition. The reverse is true. The starting point is that the rights of trans people must be respected, and only in exceptional circumstances can exceptions be made. Where and when exceptions are made they must be on a case-by-case basis; there can be no blanket bans. This is detailed in the quote I provided. We've been over this too many times, yet you are still playing games with the human rights of trans people.

 

[monkers]

There is no individual case by case requirement.

There is. Not only is this stated by the Government's own Equalities Office, but it has also been tested in the High Court with the outcome, that there can be no blanket bans on trans people - this is a general principle of human rights law, not a special case for trans people.

 

[monkers]

I'd like the link for that 'government bulletin' so I can read it for myself. It doesn't really sound like a cut and paste from an official statement.

Well it is ...

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b3a478240f0b64603fc181b/GEO-LGBT-factsheet.pdf

 

[AuroraSaab]

The starting point is that the rights of trans people must be respected, and only in exceptional circumstances can exceptions be made.

Nobody has said any different. It's the same for all protected characteristics. If you have a general medical service it would be the expected starting point that everybody is free to use it, regardless of age, race, sex etc.

Where and when exceptions are made they must be on a case-by-case basis; there can be no blanket bans. This is detailed in the quote I provided. We've been over this too many times, yet you are still playing games with the human rights of trans people.

There is no requirement to assess individual persons though, which is what you keep suggesting. If your medical service is specifically for one sex and age group - eg a men's mental health group session, for ages 18 to 30 - you don't have to assess each person who applies to decide if they can attend. You can say 'Men only, 18-30' and reject all applications to join from biological women and those over 30 or under 18.

Nobody sensible would think such regulations are unreasonable.