Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

Statistics and history tell us there is a correlation though, which is why we have single sex spaces for women and girls in the first place.

You previously claimed that history provided separate facilities to maintain dignity. I had no objection to that argument up until the point that you claimed that it was a protected woman's right in the EqA. It isn't.

In this post though, you are back to talking about excluding people on the basis of their DNA with nothing but your perception of the person by appearance. This is why the spoof works, because it is completely believable that two women could get into a spat by each perceiving the other to be trans, or a pervert donning a dress.

In effect what you are doing is conflating criminals and non-criminals (ie people innocent of any crime) by stereotyping them. You've said that you think stereotypes are regressive; and on that point I agree with you.

 

[monkers]

Removing your genitals doesn't change your sex.

Neither does it make you a rapist. The inverse applies here. No man would castrate himself to be able to rape women. No trans woman transitions to rape women. It's clearly nonsense.

If you presented an idea that there are male sex offenders who have failed to stop themselves, and the state has failed to stop them too, then I'd find that plausible. If you went further and said that some of those people have put themselves through transition in order to stop themselves, I might find that plausible too. But men castrating themselves to be able to rape women is just too absurd.

 

[monkers]

People take all sorts of medicines for emotional reasons. Many women don't use hrt - neither of which means it changes your sex or makes you more woman-y or man-y.

As I said, try talking to post-menopausal people if you want to understand hormones. We know stuff you clearly don't.

 

[monkers]

So that confirms there are only two sexes. You can change sex according to you with drugs or surgery.

Therefore trans is just a social construct.

It says that regardless of how many sexes, gender identities, religious beliefs (insert other characteristics at will), you can't change your DNA.

A person's biology is not a social construct. There are societal roles, expectations, identities, and expressions that revolve around sex, but they are not ever fixed. We lesbian women often express differently to cis women, but try looking for our sexuality written in our DNA and you'll struggle.

Do I think I'm a lesbian because I crave the social construct or the negative stereotypes? I don't want to give away too many of our dirty little secrets, but there are lesbians who don't sleep with women because they are allergic to cock. It isn't always about sexual desire, though sometimes it is. Why do I bother, you wouldn't or rather couldn't understand.

 

[AuroraSaab]

In this post though, you are back to talking about excluding people on the basis of their DNA with nothing but your perception of the person by appearance.

I suggest people self exclude from spaces and services that are not intended for them, but which are provided exclusively for others for perfectly legitimate reasons. I wouldn't even consider trying to join a gay men's choir or an under 18's sports club for example. How I look has nothing to do with it.

In effect what you are doing is conflating criminals and non-criminals (ie people innocent of any crime) by stereotyping them. You've said that you think stereotypes are regressive; and on that point I agree with you.

We all know men are a safeguarding risk to women and girls, and that having men present in certain limited situations also compromises their sense of dignity and privacy. It's not stereotyping men as criminals to say that.

Decent men who are unlikely to hurt anybody understand why it is not appropriate for them to insist they can get changed in women's changing rooms or ask to attend women's rape support groups, however harmless they know themselves to be. They know it's not about the character of them as an individual and that such things are not decided on a person by person basis.

You continually fall back on this argument because you have failed to demonstrate why some men should receive preferential treatment that we don't give others.

The logical outcome of your argument is that every space and service should be mixed sex. We all know that wouldn't end well for women and girls.

 

[monkers]

I suggest people self exclude from spaces and services that are not intended for them, but which are provided exclusively for others for perfectly legitimate reasons. I wouldn't even consider trying to join a gay men's choir or an under 18's sports club for example. How I look has nothing to do with it.

I have no problem with you suggesting it, but you have no history of doing so. You do however have a history of demanding the absolute exclusion.

Gay men have gay men's choruses for an express reason, which has nothing to do with excluding people and everything to do with challenging negative perceptions of being gay. They are promoting themselves because they are a minority, not excluding others while being the majority.

 

[icowden]

The obvious mistake is in the words 'provide a legitimate route'. Loos are not a place to 'hang out' - was the visual imagery intended Ian?

I realised the slight pun afterwards tbh.

Public loos are places for any person to be able to go to relieve themselves. The private space is the part behind the locking door. The part outside the locking door is a public space. Any person doing criminal activity in the public space is committing a crime regardless of their personal characteristics. If the person is cis gender or trans gender doesn't make a difference. The crime carries the label, not the person.

We agree. However according to common dramatic tropes and my own observations, ladies tend to go to the loo in groups and presumably therefore occupy the communal area for a longer period of time than the gents. Gents previously tended not to go into the ladies, but now there is a "safe" avenue for a gent to enter the ladies if dressed appropriately and to use the scaffolding of gender protection to justify their presence. This is the area that I believe some women are finding problematic.

See also Isla Bryson taking time to apply fake tan to teenaged girls whilst on bail for rape charges. Previously Bryson wouldn't have been allowed near that course.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I have no problem with you suggesting it, but you have no history of doing so. You do however have a history of demanding the absolute exclusion.

It's not absolutely exclusion. It's exclusion of men in certain limited situations where their exclusion is proportionate. It does include all men though, regardless of how they feel about themselves.

Gay men have gay men's choruses for an express reason, which has nothing to do with excluding people and everything to do with challenging negative perceptions of being gay. They are promoting themselves because they are a minority, not excluding others while being the majority.

So gay men can have their own choir but women and girls' reasons for having their own changing rooms or domestic violence refuges aren't good enough? That's ridiculous.

 

[monkers]

I realised the slight pun afterwards tbh.


We agree. However according to common dramatic tropes and my own observations, ladies tend to go to the loo in groups and presumably therefore occupy the communal area for a longer period of time than the gents. Gents previously tended not to go into the ladies, but now there is a "safe" avenue for a gent to enter the ladies if dressed appropriately and to use the scaffolding of gender protection to justify their presence. This is the area that I believe some women are finding problematic.

See also Isla Bryson taking time to apply fake tan to teenaged girls whilst on bail for rape charges. Previously Bryson wouldn't have been allowed near that course.

Taking Bryson first. Whether Bryson qualifies as a being genuine or not requires more facts than available. Bryson didn't seem to 'propose' transition until arrested. I deem that as to late to qualify - others will no doubt disagree - but this is opinion rather than legal opinion.

N could tell you about an allegation that involved a one time friend of her's. A woman that N's friend couldn't recall ever meeting made an allegation of rape against her. Time has passed and I'm a little hazy on the details. The case didn't succeed because even prior to hormone treatment N's friend was in a marriage with a woman and had been seeking treatment for ED for some time.

When the marriage failed, N's friend did 6 months of volunteer working in Africa without telling the then wife. The alleged rape occurred in the UK within that window of time.

Later it transpired that the woman was an old school friend of the ex wife who was unhappy with the transition. It also transpired that the woman had some hopes and desires to be with N's friend and didn't know about the ED. The ex-wife supported her friend's allegation with a false statement.

Back to Bryson. I don't know if Bryson committed rape or not. I do know that they were found guilty, and therefore a custodial sentence was necessary. From what I understand from reports, which of course could be false, Bryson wasn't known to be trans until appearing in court, that three later appointment to attend a GIC were not kept, and that Bryson is not continuing with transition now that they are in a male prison. We can freely speculate about why that is. But whatever, my point before the Bryson case and remains the same, that the term 'proposing' in the EqA needs clarity.

I spoke about Badenoch. I'd have to believe that parliament intended the EqA for sex to be defined as biological sex before I think it can be 'clarified' by ministerial intervention. I do believe that the term 'proposing' can be clarified though without such difficulty or at least with less difficulty and controversy. However Badenoch is one of those who tends to favour the strategy of inculcation of fear in order to advance herself.

Cis women do tend to go to the loo together as a social event. Lesbian women much less so in my own experiences. But as a woman who hears others in the women's loo, I can reveal this to you - women go to the loo in groups even when they don't want to go. They just 'hang out' in there to discuss their men behind their backs. We have an expectation of being safe, but not a right to gossip in a facility.

What is being argued for here, is the denial of rights for some people who just need to pee so that others can use the space as a gossip room.

 

[monkers]

It's not absolutely exclusion. It's exclusion of men in certain limited situations where their exclusion is proportionate. It does include all men though, regardless of how they feel about themselves.



So gay men can have their own choir but women and girls' reasons for having their own changing rooms or domestic violence refuges aren't good enough? That's ridiculous.

False equivalence.

Women and girls are not a minority still struggling for acceptance in a country still blighted by bigotry, being called 'sodomites' and much else by religious adherents, and the legacy of section 28.

Gay Men's choirs are a celebration of their happiness, following a period of brutal repression. They aren't trying to stop straight men from taking a leak.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I can reveal this to you - women go to the loo in groups even when they don't want to go. They just 'hang out' in there to discuss their men behind their backs. We have an expectation of being safe, but not a right to gossip in a facility.

Women (and men) can talk about what they like, where they like actually. And apart from teenagers and young women in pubs and nightclubs who do sometimes use the toilets as refuge (from what you might ask...), adult women don't routinely disappear in groups to the toilets.

What is being argued for here, is the denial of rights for some people who just need to pee so that others can use the space as a gossip room.

This must rank as one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. Men aren't denied access to women's toilets just so women can chat. If the men who 'just need to pee' genuinely 'just need to pee' they can do so just as easily in the Mens. I'm constantly being told on here that only a tiny number of Nazi bigots don't accept transwomen so it stands to reason that they will be welcomed in the gents facilities. Win-win.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Gay Men's choirs are a celebration of their happiness, following a period of brutal repression. They aren't trying to stop straight men from taking a leak.

They are reflection that an oppressed group - which doesn't have to be a minority - can legitimately exclude others and that it's not unfair to do so. Ditto women and girls. Groups are allowed their own stuff and their own spaces.

 

[monkers]

Women (and men) can talk about what they like, where they like actually. And apart from teenagers and young women in pubs and nightclubs who do sometimes use the toilets as refuge (from what you might ask...), adult women don't routinely disappear in groups to the toilets.



This must rank as one of the most ridiculous things you've ever said. Men aren't denied access to women's toilets just so women can chat. If the men who 'just need to pee' genuinely 'just need to pee' they can do so just as easily in the Mens. I'm constantly being told on here that only a tiny number of Nazi bigots don't accept transwomen so it stands to reason that they will be welcomed in the gents facilities. Win-win.

I wasn't talking about men. I was talking about women who didn't have the good fortune to be born congruent. What you can't deny though is that 'safe space' means a gossip chamber, and 'safe' means not overheard by men. Though to be fair, you haven't even attempted to defend the point. But I will concede the point, that sometimes women actually go there to pee.

 

[monkers]

They are reflection that an oppressed group - which doesn't have to be a minority - can legitimately exclude others and that it's not unfair to do so. Ditto women and girls. Groups are allowed their own stuff and their own spaces.

It's a false equivalence, but no doubt you'll just keep on keeping on, just as if it is.

 

[monkers]

Charitable Aims​

Brighton Gay Men’s Chorus is registered charity, no. 1171020, with 3 key charitable objectives:

1To promote public education by the study, practice and public performance of choral music; and to assist other charitable causes.
2For the public benefit to advance and promote the education of gay and gay-friendly men in Brighton and Hove in the subject of choral music, its study, practice and performance.
3The promotion of equality and diversity for the public benefit by the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, in particular, but not exclusively, by raising public awareness of discrimination towards and issues affecting the LGBTQ community.