Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

You should probably read that back to yourself and have a little think about it...

The issue is still men.

Single sex spaces aren't just about being physically safe, as you well know. They are about privacy and dignity as well. It should be enough that women don't want to be made to feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or feel intimidated, by a male presence.

 

[classic33]

YET ANOTHER DANGEROUS SEX OFFENDER BEING HOUSED IN A WOMAN'S PRISON!!

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...nham-jailed-police-crime-london-b1056576.html

View attachment 3043

What about Vicki Bevan?

 

[Unkraut]

I'm not persuaded that religious belief is truth, the clue is in the term belief. What is a truth changes over time.

Truth by definition doesn't change over time. It is fixed. Our knowledge of it may change.

Disputes arise even between bishops of the same faith.

The Anglican bishops illustrate the above. Those who think LGBT is biblically acceptable and morally good and those who don't. They cannot both be right. They cannot agree that 'you have your truth and I have mine' when their views are inconsistent with each other, are a contradiction in terms.

The C of E's first non-binary priest has claimed 'God led him into new truth'. There is no such thing.

Freud arches an eyebrow

I'm not a great fan of Freud. His theories don't seem to have stood the test of time very well when suitably analysed.

I didn’t claim that you are aligned with Trump on every subject but it does appear that you are in agreement on your distaste and the need for trans people to stop being so visible because really it’s just wrongness in their heads. Is that a fair summary of what you said you believe?

I'd go back a stage and say I don't believe trans people actually exist. What I mean is biological sex cannot be changed, and as gender is essentially the same thing you cannot transition from male to female or vice versa. If gender is a social construct, something you 'feel', then how can you define what you are transitioning from and to anyway?

You cannot have a sign in the loos saying they may be cleaned by male and female attendants if you cannot say what female is - what is a woman.

Right wing politician takes opportunity to garner more right wing support by taking advantage of a high profile issue.

Trump may be a populist, but he is tapping into a popular concern. Parents in the States have very real concerns at massive state overreach into the lives of their children that can lead to their harm. They don't want ruinous fines or the threat of imprisonment if they don't go alone with this.

Anglican Unscripted gave the example of Disney's latest film (Strange World I think) considered to be too woke which has tanked at the box office and set to lose $100 million. Parents don't want this.

 

[multitool]

The issue is still men.

Single sex spaces aren't just about being physically safe, as you well know. They are about privacy and dignity as well. It should be enough that women don't want to be made to feel uncomfortable, embarrassed, or feel intimidated, by a male presence.

Goalpost move and a whoosh.

 

[Ian H]

Truth by definition doesn't change over time. It is fixed. Our knowledge of it may change.

You are confusing objective truth with subjective opinion.

I'm not a great fan of Freud. His theories don't seem to have stood the test of time very well when suitably analysed.

Very witty

 

[Unkraut]

Goalpost move and a whoosh.

I don't get why you keep saying this.

It seems to me AS has consistently argued for women's spaces to be respected, and that males by definition need to be excluded.

Transwomen are not women for this purpose of exclusion but remain men. If you accept this, then transgender ideology falls apart as it insists transwomen are women for all purposes. It cannot allow transwomen to be accepted as women but with exceptions, such as sport.

It is biological women who have to pay the price of this, and I think they have every right to resist it.

 

[monkers]

I don't get why you keep saying this.

It seems to me AS has consistently argued for women's spaces to be respected, and that males by definition need to be excluded.

Transwomen are not women for this purpose of exclusion but remain men. If you accept this, then transgender ideology falls apart as it insists transwomen are women for all purposes. It cannot allow transwomen to be accepted as women but with exceptions, such as sport.

It is biological women who have to pay the price of this, and I think they have every right to resist it.

It's trans women, not 'transwomen', either this is a grammatical error, which it shouldn't be by this far into the thread, or you are pursuing an agenda not permitted by law.

In the UK trans women with a GRC are in the correct facility for all purposes in law since 2004 if they use the female facility. That is not some airy fairy code, it is a contract made between the individual person and the state. It's for the remainder of the life. The 2010 Act introduced some permitted exceptions, going to the 'ladies room' isn't one of them. The Scottish Act changes none of that.

Religious belief and religious moral codes might be contest to this, but they are your moral codes, and again I have to remind you, that Christian belief is not the law. In the UK a minority of citizens are Christians anyway.

 

[fozy tornip]

I'm not a great fan of Freud. His theories don't seem to have stood the test of time very well when suitably analysed.

It's not a done deal:

https://aeon.co/essays/can-neuroscience-rehabilitate-freud-for-the-age-of-the-brain

https://sirihustvedt.net/work/publications/blogs/whos-afraid-of-sigmund-freud

What Belinda and her admirers thought of Freud isn't recorded.

 

[fozy tornip]

In the UK a minority of citizens are Christians anyway.

Shouldn't that be "self-identify as Christian"?

And to be fair, I thought that recent survey was specific to England and that overall - including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - people self-identifying as Christians were in a slender majority?

As a trans humanist I find sharing any space with cis or trans Christians scary. And don't get me started on HERCs.

 

[monkers]

Shouldn't that be "self-identify as Christian"?

And to be fair, I thought that recent survey was specific to England and that overall - including Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland - people self-identifying as Christians were in a slender majority?

As a trans humanist I find sharing any space with cis or trans Christians scary. And don't get me started on HERCs.

Self-identify as Christians? Absolutely. Baptism does not form a contract with the state like a GRC does.

Numbers? Possibly, I'm prepared to take your word for it. I might trouble to look up the census data later.

I've been physically attacked three times in women's toilets. The first time was in London in one of those underground ones, I was mugged at knifepoint by a gang of three young women. The second time was in a gay pub in Portsmouth when a man, presenting as a man came into the toilet, found me alone and roughed me up while promising to 'cure me of my daemons'. The third time was again in the women's toilet in a pub when I tried to persuade one lesbian woman from continuing to batter her partner (there was blood everywhere - ambulance required), she proceeded to attack me instead. I think the commonality in each case was related to drink and/or drugs more than due to the biological sex of my assailants.

 

[Bromptonaut]

It's not trans exclusion, it's male exclusion. All of 'em. Every single one. Even the ones who wish they weren't male.

But if they'd not been born male they'd not be trans so it absolutely is trans people whom you want to exclude.

The phrase all of 'em. Every single one is also interesting; does that include those with a GRC under the current law?

 

[fozy tornip]

Self-identify as Christians? Absolutely. Baptism does not form a contract with the state like a GRC does.

Numbers? Possibly, I'm prepared to take your word for it. I might trouble to look up the census data later.

I've been physically attacked three times in women's toilets. The first time was in London in one of those underground ones, I was mugged at knifepoint by a gang of three young women. The second time was in a gay pub in Portsmouth when a man, presenting as a man came into the toilet, found me alone and roughed me up while promising to 'cure me of my daemons'. The third time was again in the women's toilet in a pub when I tried to persuade one lesbian woman from continuing to batter her partner (there was blood everywhere - ambulance required), she proceeded to attack me instead. I think the commonality in each case was related to drink and/or drugs more than due to the biological sex of my assailants.

Toilets would seem to be the common factor, surely.
Writers of dystopian/utopian fiction have missed a trick: eliminating the need to eliminate must be the way forward.
Stoma not Soma.

 

[winjim]

But if they'd not been born male they'd not be trans so it absolutely is trans people whom you want to exclude.

The phrase all of 'em. Every single one is also interesting; does that include those with a GRC under the current law?

Forget trans women. Forget GRCs. She's already provided an example where she thinks men should be able to access women's spaces. So it's not 'all of 'em', it's not even all cis men.

 

[monkers]

Toilets would seem to be the common factor, surely.
Writers of dystopian/utopian fiction have missed a trick: eliminating the need to eliminate must be the way forward.
Stoma not Soma.

Given my experiences, I'd actually prefer mixed toilets. I think the presence of a few men in the general area would help deter attacks on women, because essentially the majority of men are decent and would put an end to it. It's the presence of one man on his own in a situation that would give me anxiety.

I wouldn't actually be bothered if I accidentally caught sight of a penis either. If it ain't erect it's a uretha as far as I'm concerned, but of course I want to be behind a door on my own when I'm doing my own business. I don't think washing my hands needs is such private matter that I can't have a man each side of me washing theirs.

 

[AuroraSaab]

But if they'd not been born male they'd not be trans so it absolutely is trans people whom you want to exclude.

If they'd not be born male, they would be female so there wouldn't be an issue. If it were just about being transgender I would seek to exclude transmen from single sex spaces, and sports. I don't.

The phrase all of 'em. Every single one is also interesting; does that include those with a GRC under the current law?

I think there are grounds for excluding all males, including those with a GRC, from single sex spaces. However, as I have repeatedly said, I think we have to make some accommodation for people with genuine dysphoria. The problem is that such accommodations rely on people having a concensus of understanding on the issue - abiding to the social contract if you like - and we might well be beyond that at this point.