Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Nobody ever said there is a blanket ban for trans people, or any other protected characteristic under the EA. It remains that in limited circumstances exclusion is lawful. You've consistently presented this as not being the case in order to confuse readers and make them think men cannot be excluded from women's single sex spaces even when that exclusion is proportionate and legitimate (as can other groups in certain circumstances). The EQ advice goes into several examples in order to make this clear.

Fortunately people on here aren't stupid and they know that a gay men's choir can legitimately in law exclude both women and straight people and that Usain Bolt can't run in the Paraolympics.

 

[monkers]

I'm not sure anyone has been attacking Monkers character. Both Aurora and I have been trying to engage in positive discussion but have been accused of being liars or posting flim flam, trying to shut down conversation and other such. I hope it's a reflection that she hasn't been feeling well as I genuinely find it interesting discussing this with both she and you.

N again Iain. (Please forgive me for using your name while protecting mine).

I managed to unintentionally skip this.

First of all, thank you for the kind words. Monkers remains unwell. She has had some better news though on one front, but she remains hampers by other health issues. I'm not sure to the extent she has said, so I'll live that there.

Slightly sad that you appear to be obliquely calling me a liar again.

Not really so. I think that you have unwittingly repeated lies told by others on occasions. To be fair, there are so many lies, and so little truth being told in the mainstream media and on social media, that fact checking everything is so very time consuming.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Calls for prosecutions


View: https://youtu.be/VHaJ37axHzc?si=w40TDuFmaW5suEvV

I doubt there'll be prosecutions. I would like to see all the records from gender clinics released in an enquiry though. It would clarify whether children were being rushed into a medicalised pathway on ideological grounds and how many. It's actually pretty hard to get doctors struck off the register but it's certainly time for full transparency on the data .

 

[icowden]

N again Iain. (Please forgive me for using your name while protecting mine).

Given the current somewhat hostile environment that trans people have to live in, I don't have a problem with that. As I have said before it is interesting to hear you share your views, and to ask you questions, but it's also important to respect that you will only share what you are comfortable sharing.

Not really so. I think that you have unwittingly repeated lies told by others on occasions. To be fair, there are so many lies, and so little truth being told in the mainstream media and on social media, that fact checking everything is so very time consuming.

Of course. I'll take that as somewhat of an apology ;-)

My take on a lie is that it requires intent to dissemble. Saying something and later finding out that that thing is wrong is human nature. That's how we learn. A good deal of science is based on getting things wrong in order to find out what is true.

 

[monkers]

Nobody ever said there is a blanket ban for trans people, or any other protected characteristic under the EA. It remains that in limited circumstances exclusion is lawful. You've consistently presented this as not being the case in order to confuse readers and make them think men cannot be excluded from women's single sex spaces even when that exclusion is proportionate and legitimate (as can other groups in certain circumstances). The EQ advice goes into several examples in order to make this clear.

Fortunately people on here aren't stupid and they know that a gay men's choir can legitimately in law exclude both women and straight people and that Usain Bolt can't run in the Paraolympics.

N here

You will have difficulty persuading me, and rendered inadmissible due to the following:-

Men should go in the men's estate, in a wing appropriate to their needs and vulnerabilities. We don't put gay men in women's prisons if they ask just because they are unlikely to be interested in sexually assaulting women. The risk factor comes from being male, as does the need for privacy and dignity for women prisoners - these needs are unaffected by how a man identifies.

On too many occasions you have pretended that the EqA is a legal apparatus enabling the exclusion of trans people. You have denied the requirement for the 'case-by'-case' basis.

 

[icowden]

One observable skew being the classification of gender identity within the database classifications that you help to manage. I'll just urge that you consider that some of these classifications are 'best fit' rather than 'exact fit'. Whatever database classification I am best-fitted to as a person with a long trans history, I can tell you is not an exact fit.

I entirely agree, and classifications don't really tell you anything at all. They are just a convenient folder to put stuff in.
I was a bit baffled by the whole hoo haa of ICD reclassification - no-one actually looks at diagnosis codes. The codes are there to enable finding of like diagnoses, or specific diagnoses in an index. They aren't part of treatment and no doctor ever records F64.5 or whatever. That would be daft.

 

[icowden]

But let's be clear in order to promote proper discussion; blanket bans against the inclusion of people on the basis of any protected characteristic are always unlawful. This is not just limited to trans prisoners as if they are a special class. This is the ongoing, I'll be somewhat generous and call this 'a mistake', position that a blanket ban on permissible exceptions under the EqA is flat out wrong. Not only is it clear from the legislature, but also from the interpretation of it by the judiciary.

A flip to support his is that you often see victims relations an unscrupulous politicians calling for new "blanket" laws. For example "Anyone who kills a public official whilst on duty (e.g. fireman, policeman, ambulance worker etc) should receive a mandatory life sentence". They always go down well with a certain type of person who fails to realise that this would absolutely hamstring the judicial process because there would be no ability for the Judge to take into account the circumstances of the crime and give an appropriate sentence.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Health secretary has ordered the release of up to 9000 kids medical records.

Bloody hell. I hope most weren't medically transitioned

 

[monkers]

A flip to support his is that you often see victims relations an unscrupulous politicians calling for new "blanket" laws. For example "Anyone who kills a public official whilst on duty (e.g. fireman, policeman, ambulance worker etc) should receive a mandatory life sentence". They always go down well with a certain type of person who fails to realise that this would absolutely hamstring the judicial process because there would be no ability for the Judge to take into account the circumstances of the crime and give an appropriate sentence.

N again.

I'll leave you all in peace soon I promise.

Essentially yes, we can agree.

Blanket laws can be lawful. By way of example, the so-called upskirting law. Let's skip the legalese in favour of plain language here, no person may take intimate pictures of another without their permission in the way this law sets out. In this scenario, anything less than a blanket law might be unlawful. Imagine if you will, that the law set out that it shall be a criminal offence to target white women in this way, but not for example women of colour.

Blanket laws that impinge on the human rights of people based on a single or blend of personal characteristics are always unlawful. I'm trying to avoid more technical detail, since those sent down for their crimes lose certain human rights while retaining others.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You will have difficulty persuading me, and rendered inadmissible due to the following:-
On too many occasions you have pretended that the EqA is a legal apparatus enabling the exclusion of trans people. You have denied the requirement for the 'case-by'-case' basis.

It's a guide for employers and service providers. The case by case aspect is the scenario put forth by the employer or service provider, not that service users have to be assessed on an individual case by case basis. Ikea can think about the scenario of who they want to use their ball pool, decide it's under 10's and legally exclude over those over 10. They don't have to admit small 12 year olds or baby faced adults. And if an over 10 sneaks in they can ask them to leave. All permissible under the EA.

For the millionth time.... nobody is excluded for being trans. They can be lawfully excluded for being male or female from spaces and services intended for the other sex. When proportionate and legimate etc etc etc....

This is the confusion and obfuscation that you endlessly promote. Nobody is banned for being transgender. Not from sports, not from jails, not from refuges, not from apps, not from changing rooms.

 

[monkers]

N here.

Monkers now awake. I'm now out - maybe another time. Chow.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Guardian interview with Hilary Cass:

https://www.theguardian.com/society...ervices?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

'Medical professionals experienced a sense of fear “of being called transphobic if you take a more cautious approach”, she said. Others were worried that they might be accused of conducting “conversion therapy if, again, they take a cautious or exploratory approach” and some clinicians expressed “fearfulness about what colleagues might say if they speak up and express an opinion that is not consistent with theirs”.'

Doesn't look like any of them mentioned they were scared of KJK.

Good news if they release the records. The clinics refused to contact patients and families to even ask if they would be prepared to or wanted to speak to Cass. That seems pretty obstructive really. I genuinely hope when the stats come out that most weren't put on a surgical and medicalised pathway and that those that did were content with that path 10 or 15 years down the line. It's no good looking at short term outcomes.

 

[monkers]

Nobody ever said there is a blanket ban for trans people, or any other protected characteristic under the EA. It remains that in limited circumstances exclusion is lawful. You've consistently presented this as not being the case in order to confuse readers and make them think men cannot be excluded from women's single sex spaces even when that exclusion is proportionate and legitimate (as can other groups in certain circumstances). The EQ advice goes into several examples in order to make this clear.

Fortunately people on here aren't stupid and they know that a gay men's choir can legitimately in law exclude both women and straight people and that Usain Bolt can't run in the Paraolympics.

This is a lie. You are a liar. Yes I'm back!

Edit: I'm going to ask N to deal with this shoot when she comes back.

 

[classic33]

Nobody ever said there is a blanket ban for trans people, or any other protected characteristic under the EA. It remains that in limited circumstances exclusion is lawful. You've consistently presented this as not being the case in order to confuse readers and make them think men cannot be excluded from women's single sex spaces even when that exclusion is proportionate and legitimate (as can other groups in certain circumstances). The EQ advice goes into several examples in order to make this clear.

Fortunately people on here aren't stupid and they know that a gay men's choir can legitimately in law exclude both women and straight people and that Usain Bolt can't run in the Paraolympics.

You're certain on that point, no need for you to a quick search of your own posts?

It's a guide for employers and service providers. The case by case aspect is the scenario put forth by the employer or service provider, not that service users have to be assessed on an individual case by case basis. Ikea can think about the scenario of who they want to use their ball pool, decide it's under 10's and legally exclude over those over 10. They don't have to admit small 12 year olds or baby faced adults. And if an over 10 sneaks in they can ask them to leave. All permissible under the EA.

For the millionth time.... nobody is excluded for being trans. They can be lawfully excluded for being male or female from spaces and services intended for the other sex. When proportionate and legimate etc etc etc....

This is the confusion and obfuscation that you endlessly promote. Nobody is banned for being transgender. Not from sports, not from jails, not from refuges, not from apps, not from changing rooms.

ALL such judgements have to be made on an individual basis. Otherwise how is anyone going to know that they are breaking the Equalities Act?

Ike may well have carried out a risk assessment for using their ball pools, and decided that because of a number of factors, often weight is the most important consideration, and they have used the average age of a 10 year old as the cut off. This is an attempt at "being diplomatic" as they can ask the age of the child a lot more freely than they can the weight. Check the age weight requirements for any toy or sporting equipment the next time you go near any. It's not there for your safety, but for manufacturers to point out to you when you complain that something designed for a ten year old broke when you used it.
Theme park/fairgrounds operate an individual assessment for people who seek to go on some of their rides. At times it's age restricted, at others it's height restricted, Not as high as this line being a common one that most pass unnoticed, unless you happen to be waiting in line.
All done on an individual basis.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're certain on that point, no need for you to a quick search of your own posts?

The post you quote literally says what I said.

ALL such judgements have to be made on an individual basis. Otherwise how is anyone going to know that they are breaking the Equalities Act?

Well they look at the advice from the EHRC and the Equality Act and decide whether it is a proportionate action for a legitimate aim to exclude group x,y, or z. Then they do it. If a member of group x,y, or z feels their group shouldn't have been excluded they are free to seek legal redress against the employer or service provider.

Ike may well have carried out a risk assessment for using their ball pools, and decided that because of a number of factors, often weight is the most important consideration, and they have used the average age of a 10 year old as the cut off. ...
All done on an individual basis.

It's not done on an individual basis though is it? Otherwise they would allow small 12 year olds in the ball pool and tiny adults. It's done on the individual scenario of each service or facility that IKEA offer.

'Is it proportionate to exclude over tens from the ball pool on the legitimate grounds of safety and safeguarding? 'Yes, let's do it'.

'Is it proportionate to exclude over tens from the restaurant on the grounds of some of them being noisy? 'No, so let's not do that'.