Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

She does explain in the article. I think it breaks down as:-

• Men = women
• Women = women
• Men who are wearing dresses and asking to be called womens names = men
• Men who are the above but taking hormones = men
• Men who are the above but have had full reassignment surgery and obtained a GRC = women

So basically you have to be "all in" to earn the right to be called a woman. Just putting a dress on and calling yourself Shirley doesn't count. She doesn't countenance the belief system where if you think you are a woman, then you are a woman regardless of the fact that you have a fully male body with penis and testicles, and I think that is the sticking point for many people, especially where it seems to be being used to erase women's rights and equalities.

A trans woman with a GRC is legally a woman regardless of surgeries, or hormone treatments. When a Minister of the crown attempts to set rules without recognising the law, we know we are looking at authoritarianism.

N tells me by text that she may pop in here later to put straight the situation regarding statutory and non-statutory guidelines. I'm looking forward to seeing her this evening so I don't want her to be in here for too long.

 

[monkers]

Male who has cut off his bits

By Andy age four and three quarters.

 

[AndyRM]

John Pesutto publicly apologies to KJK for Neo Nazis slur

https://www.johnpesutto.com.au/media-releases/2024-05-17-statement-from-the-leader-of-the-opposition

You ever heard of John Pesutto before you were told to listen by social media?

How do you feel about Max Rockatansky?

 

[icowden]

A trans woman with a GRC is legally a woman regardless of surgeries, or hormone treatments. When a Minister of the crown attempts to set rules without recognising the law, we know we are looking at authoritarianism.

She didn't do that. She stated what she thought. She has not tried to enact any legislation based on her thoughts.

 

[monkers]

She didn't do that. She stated what she thought. She has not tried to enact any legislation based on her thoughts.

I did not say that she has tried to enact legislation. She is the relevant Minister of the Crown. Do you not think that in her position that we should be able to expect that she has a grip on the issues that she is attempting to produce guidelines for? You'll note that she could not even bring herself to use the actual vocabulary of sex.

There is Maya Forstater saying that she if very happy with the proposals while the Minister says that she believes that men become women after having surgery. That is not the position in law; it is not even the position that I subscribe to, yet that is what schools will be told to be teaching?

Teachers will be permitted under the guidelines to discuss the surgery, but not allowed to simply say that people need to be allowed to live in the opposite sex because they need to for their mental wellbeing (because that is 'gender ideology'). What a load of tosh. This is just truth avoidance, nothing to do with protecting children from harm.

So in the course of a lesson on human rights and the EqA, the teacher mentions the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they may answer questions by talking about genital reconstruction surgeries (with pictures?), but must not quote from the legislation for fear of mention of gender identity.

 

[CXRAndy]

but not allowed to simply say that people need to be allowed to live in the opposite sex because they need to for their mental wellbeing

That is not telling the truth, people cannot change sex, they can pretend to live in an alternate reality, that's all. They need psychiatric help

This is just truth avoidance

Its telling the truth.

 

[monkers]

That is not telling the truth, people cannot change sex, they can pretend to live in an alternate reality, that's all. They need psychiatric help

Listen up. I know you are very very dim, but I have never said that trans people completely change their biological sex. I've said it so very often.
Trans people are not 'corrected' or made whole by 'psychiatric help', they are helped by giving them access to the services they need to ameliorate their situation. What they need most of all is legal protection from people like you.

Its telling the truth.

It isn't ... but I don't expect you to understand the point. It's actually indoctrinated people like you that need 'psychiatric help'.

 

[CXRAndy]

trans people completely change their biological sex.

Nobody can partially or fully change sex. You play with words to suit your trans needs.

You're a male or female, boy/girl man/woman.

If a person wants to pretend to be the opposite, fine, but their designation should be TiM or TiF. Then there is no confusing impressionable kids. Men calling themselves women is now done, that ship has been sunk.

 

[monkers]

Nobody can partially or fully change sex. You play with words to suit your trans needs.

You're a male or female, boy/girl man/woman.

If a person wants to pretend to be the opposite, fine, but their designation should be TiM or TiF. Then there is no confusing impressionable kids. Men calling themselves women is now done, that ship has been sunk.

Nobody can fully change every facet of their sex - we can agree. But sex is not binary is it? It doesn't matter how you try to insist that it is, it just isn't. It doesn't matter if you choose to talk about genitals, gametes, chromosomes, or hormones - nature creates variations. This is not 'trans activists pushing gender ideology'; it's science.

You raised the case of Caster Semenya. Her sex does not fit the binary; therefore she has a condition that is intersex, though she dislikes the term.

The are people born with one ovary and one testicle, there are people born with XXY chromosomes. Some people only find out late in life that they are neither XX or XY. Physical sex is not purely binary. To say otherwise is a lie.

Keegan asserts that gender identity and gender ideology are different things. So what is 'gender ideology'? Can you define it without saying that gender identity doesn't exist?

 

[AndyRM]

Nobody can partially or fully change sex. You play with words to suit your trans needs.

You're a male or female, boy/girl man/woman.

If a person wants to pretend to be the opposite, fine, but their designation should be TiM or TiF. Then there is no confusing impressionable kids. Men calling themselves women is now done, that ship has been sunk.

 

[CXRAndy]

The are people born with one ovary and one testicle, there are people born with XXY chromosomes. Some people only find out late in life that they are neither XX or XY. Physical sex is not purely binary. To say otherwise is a lie.

Keegan asserts that gender identity and gender ideology are different things. So what is 'gender ideology'? Can you define it without saying that gender identity doesn't exist?

Those are people born with genetic malfunction, an error, not a separate sex. They were meant to be either male or female. Similar those with missing limbs, senses, deaf blind, a genetic malfunction. Nobody can link those with a created ideology of wanting to be a man who wants to wear women's clothing and wear makeup.

Keegan is trying to cling onto the crazy situation that has been allowed to flourish that males can change sex with surgery and paperwork.

 

[monkers]

I'm handing over now to N for a moment ...

I have seen some conversation here and moreover elsewhere concerning the legal status of the guidelines in the UK.

It is more complex than is evident on the surface. Without attempting to complete a long and dry legal essay, I will attempt a shorter and more readable comment.

It is first necessary to distinguish between parliament (the House of Commons and the House of Lords), the government, the executive, and the judiciary.

Legislation can only be passed by approving a Bill. A Bill can be presented to parliament in the name of the government, a member of the executive, a member of the HoC, or a member of the HoL. The judiciary are independent. Bills can be passed that in whole or in part give permission to others to act without referral to parliament.

There are various other arrangements, such as differing types of statutory instruments that can be used, principally to 'clarify' what parliament intended.

The judiciary are independent. Judges are required to report to the relevant minister where they consider that there are matters of ambiguity or incompatibility. The relevant minister may then use ministerial power to adjust the wording.

In one piece of legislation (concerned with Social Services) permission was given by parliament for the executive or other authorised body to be able to issue guidance.

Since that time, Ministers have over time taken the same power to issue other guidance.

In one legal case, the judge ruled that non-statutory guidance has become binding due to precedence, but not legal precedence.

Therefore, the question of precedence for the power is not legally established and remains contestable.

Keegan's new guidance, whatever my opinion of it, is not unquestionably statutory since it does not rely on competence conveyed by a previous relevant legal act.

For the present time however, Forstater, in my opinion and the opinions of colleagues I have discussed this with, incorrect to claim that the guidance is statutory. Keegan herself says that the guidance is not statutory until the ongoing consultation process is complete.

 

[CXRAndy]

Keegan stated yesterday the guidance became statutory in 2020, but was delayed to get clarification from an independent panel of experts when the relevant ages of school children should be taught certain aspects of sex education.

Parents, mothers are the first and primary teachers of their kids.

 

[monkers]

Keegan stated yesterday the guidance became statutory in 2020, but was delayed to get clarification from an independent panel of experts when the relevant ages of school children should be taught certain aspects of sex education.

Parents, mothers are the first and primary teachers of their kids.

N here.

You should not be surprised that Keegan is incorrect. As late as December 2023 the only version was draft guidance and remains so until beyond the end of the consultation period. Draft guidance is non-statutory.

Statutory guidance will not serve to prevent parents from discussing gender identity etc with their children.

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://youtu.be/na8Phk6UR18?t=415


clip starts jut as she says it became statutory