Gender again. Sorry!

[CXRAndy]

Not really, just ask to see their forearm, or swollen hand. Then they know it's a female with a mental health issue

 

[AuroraSaab]

Given that you don't have to appear feminine to be counted as a transwoman or to get a GRC, you can have a beard if you like, under what you claimed was the law any man could already go into a women's toilet and claim to be a transwoman.

So it's no different now the Supreme Court has clarified the Equality Act, only this time they'll be claiming to be a transman by your logic.

Also you weren't concerned about it before so why are you concerned about it now? If a man in dress who says he's a woman was ok before, why is a man in a suit who says he's a transman not ok? Both are men and neither should be in women's single sex spaces.
It's just that you think one group of men are special and should go where they want.

Same with the 'But where do transmen go to pee?' question. You were quite happy that any male who claimed to be a transwoman had access to women's spaces, but now you think it's a big deal that less stereotypically feminine looking women do.

 

[classic33]

Given that you don't have to appear feminine to be counted as a transwoman or to get a GRC, you can have a beard if you like, under what you claimed was the law any man could already go into a women's toilet and claim to be a transwoman.

So it's no different now the Supreme Court has clarified the Equality Act, only this time they'll be claiming to be a transman by your logic.

Also you weren't concerned about it before so why are you concerned about it now? If a man in dress who says he's a woman was ok before, why is a man in a suit who says he's a transman not ok? Both are men and neither should be in women's single sex spaces.
It's just that you think one group of men are special and should go where they want.

Same with the 'But where do transmen go to pee?' question. You were quite happy that any male who claimed to be a transwoman had access to women's spaces, but now you think it's a big deal that less stereotypically feminine looking women do.

Now maybe you can answer the question asked of you, here and elsewhere, of why has your argument been one sided all along.

 

[monkers]

Given that you don't have to appear feminine to be counted as a transwoman or to get a GRC, you can have a beard if you like, under what you claimed was the law any man could already go into a women's toilet and claim to be a transwoman.

So it's no different now the Supreme Court has clarified the Equality Act, only this time they'll be claiming to be a transman by your logic.

Also you weren't concerned about it before so why are you concerned about it now? If a man in dress who says he's a woman was ok before, why is a man in a suit who says he's a transman not ok? Both are men and neither should be in women's single sex spaces.
It's just that you think one group of men are special and should go where they want.

Same with the 'But where do transmen go to pee?' question. You were quite happy that any male who claimed to be a transwoman had access to women's spaces, but now you think it's a big deal that less stereotypically feminine looking women do.

Oh the gender critical brigade have accused trans women with a GRC as being ''bedwetters'' (no evidence of that, and no women ever was told to start pelvic floor exercises because of a lack of bladder control), ''just men in a cheap dress, with cheap shoes, and a cheap wig'' (no elitism there), ''having the same rate of offending as men'' (the so-called 'evidence' for that proved to the contrary), ''not real women'', but also ''not real men''. The claims of trans women all being perverts, rapists, and paedophiles is disproved.

The one case of misrepresenting their sex to a partner turned out to be a cisgender lesbian using a strap-on with another women; she pretending to be a man (eek - awkward). A few cases reported as trans women involved in child abuse cases turned out to be drag queens (gay men like Wes Streeting who actually have self-loathing Mummy issues and/or Christian self-loathing issues), and the case of the (alleged) trans woman who was shagging her Alsatian dog turned out to be a cis woman who pretended to be a trans woman on arrest.

Thanks to @mickle for raising the stickman blob chart again, so that another opportunity arose to prove it to be fascist-like propaganda. Wow 103 women imprisoned for sexual offences though!

Thanks also to Dawn Butler for bringing the ridiculous mess of the interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling made by Falkner with her broad hints that trans women and trans men can be blanket banned from everywhere as long as service providers are the ones saying so.

Expect to see lines of trans women with a GRC using shewees to piss up against lorry wheels in the services on the A1 (yeh it's legal for men do that!)

 

[mickle]

Oh the gender critical brigade have accused trans women with a GRC as being ''bedwetters'' (no evidence of that, and no women ever was told to start pelvic floor exercises because of a lack of bladder control), ''just men in a cheap dress, with cheap shoes, and a cheap wig'' (no elitism there), ''having the same rate of offending as men'' (the so-called 'evidence' for that proved to the contrary), ''not real women'', but also ''not real men''. The claims of trans women all being perverts, rapists, and paedophiles is disproved.

The one case of misrepresenting their sex to a partner turned out to be a cisgender lesbian using a strap-on with another women; she pretending to be a man (eek - awkward). A few cases reported as trans women involved in child abuse cases turned out to be drag queens (gay men like Wes Streeting who actually have self-loathing Mummy issues and/or Christian self-loathing issues), and the case of the (alleged) trans woman who was shagging her Alsatian dog turned out to be a cis woman who pretended to be a trans woman on arrest.

Thanks to @mickle for raising the stickman blob chart again, so that another opportunity arose to prove it to be fascist-like propaganda. Wow 103 women imprisoned for sexual offences though!

Thanks also to Dawn Butler for bringing the ridiculous mess of the interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling made by Falkner with her broad hints that trans women and trans men can be blanket banned from everywhere as long as service providers are the ones saying so.

Expect to see lines of trans women with a GRC using shewees to piss up against lorry wheels in the services on the A1 (yeh it's legal for men do that!)

You aint proved nuffink.

 

[CXRAndy]

Death throes is what happening to Monkers ideology

 

[mickle]

Why are rates of sexual assault among male prisoners who identify as women astronomically higher than those of the general male prison population?

In the UK, 50% of trans-identifying male inmates are serving time for sexual assault—compare that to 18% among the general male population. In the U.S., it’s 60%. In Australia, it’s 25.5%, while the general male prison population sits at just 10%. These are not anomalies. These are patterns.

 

[monkers]

You aint proved nuffink.

Then U is fick as sh*t innit!

The blob chart that you used to show that 1916 trans women with a GRC (that was the discussion that you dropped it into) were in prison for sexual assault was debunked to show there was no proof there was even one. I dropped that image into AI to see if it could spot the problems, 3 nano seconds later it ripped it to shreds. You could have done the same, but there was the fascist agenda to satisfy.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Oh the gender critical brigade have accused trans women with a GRC as being ''bedwetters'' (no evidence of that, and no women ever was told to start pelvic floor exercises because of a lack of bladder control),

You don't know much about women apparently.

Lots of women have been told to start pelvic floor exercises because of a lack of bladder control, which is common after childbirth, menopause, and as women age.
It's so common they recommend it in hospital to you after childbirth.

How odd that you're oblivious to pelvic floor exercises for women.

 

[monkers]

Why are rates of sexual assault among male prisoners who identify as women astronomically higher than those of the general male prison population?

In the UK, 50% of trans-identifying male inmates are serving time for sexual assault—compare that to 18% among the general male population. In the U.S., it’s 60%. In Australia, it’s 25.5%, while the general male prison population sits at just 10%. These are not anomalies. These are patterns.

One of the complaints of gender criticals is that crime committed by trans women is counted in the female numbers. Another often spoken lie is that these ''male prisoners who identify as men'' are housed in the women's prison estate by default, or as their own choice (by male privilege). Again these are lies.

That cohort are male prisoners. That cohort does not include trans women with a GRC: they are counted in the female group.

If you take the trouble to read the explanation I gave, you wouldn't still be so f*cking pig ignorant of the facts. Do I need to type in oink rather than screen ink for you to understand?

I gave you links to follow to understand the real numbers.

I have a bridge for sale ...

 

[AuroraSaab]

This notion that men only count as trans if they have a GRC is the opposite of everything you've previously claimed on here, and the opposite of the stance of every trans advocacy group.

It's a convenient way of dodging the evidence of the stats though because we know relatively few of those men who claim to be women apply for a GRC.

Men are housed in the female estate by choice. We know this because there are men who identify as women who are in the Men's estate and have made no application to move. A man would only be placed in a women's jail in the UK if he requested to be.

 

[Ian H]

You don't know much about women apparently.

Lots of women have been told to start pelvic floor exercises because of a lack of bladder control, which is common after childbirth, menopause, and as women age.
It's so common they recommend it in hospital to you after childbirth.

How odd that you're oblivious to pelvic floor exercises for women.

How odd that you're oblivious to satire.

 

[monkers]

This notion that men only count as trans if they have a GRC is the opposite of everything you've previously claimed on here, and the opposite of the stance of every trans advocacy group.

It's a convenient way of dodging the evidence of the stats though because we know relatively few of those men who claim to be women apply for a GRC.

Men are housed in the female estate by choice. We know this because there are men who identify as women who are in the Men's estate and have made no application to move. A man would only be placed in a women's jail in the UK if he requested to be.

One of your prime beefs (ha) has been your ongoing complaint that I always seem to want to separate trans women with a GRC and those without. The reason is clear, because trans women with a GRC are legally women, they have a two way contract with the state that those without do not. For example, a trans woman with a GRC has signed a statutory declaration, a solemn promise to intend to live in that gender identity and sex until their eventual death in return for the acquired rights of so doing. The guidance notes that accompany the notice of decision of the expert panel sets out the acquired rights such that it is obvious to any reader was always that the intention of parliament was the trans women are both women and female before the law. In every limb of statute, people are the sex as stated on their birth certificate.

I never say that ''men only count as trans if they have a GRC''. What I do say is that trans women with a GRC are women as provided for in law. It's a legal contract with the state with all the terms and provisions decided by the state.

I never ask you to agree with the law, merely that you recognise the law; something you refuse to do.

Trans women with a GRC are not merely given a piece of paper, they are given the legal right to live as a woman; also the state must accordingly provide the duty of protection of those rights equally as to cis women.

We might agree that the state is guilty of failing cis women as it is failing trans women. A united front of both groups would be much more effective in reminding them of their legal obligations than engaging the government in the exercise of illegitimate discrimination.

Very odd that you should say that I obviously can not know much about women. That's the very same kind of elitism that lesbian women experience from women who feel smug and superior for having shagged men and baked babies. Apparently lesbians are not womanly enough either to be considered along side you. As for the Supreme Court judges making rulings on who a lesbian can have sex with and retain the right to call herself a lesbian, they like you can go 'f*ck themselves. If I was to decide to enter into marriage with a trans woman with a GRC, it would be recorded as a same sex marriage; so imagine two people with female birth certificates in a same sex marriage being told by some crusty old hetties that despite this you are not legally lesbians is beyond the pale.

I say this despite the fact that I am a cis woman openly in a long-term with another cis woman, and never having either been married or having baked babies. I have nonetheless raised one child as if she is my own, and probably with more affection and devotion than you are capable of.

 

[monkers]

Happy to see Glinner facing charges for harassment of a minor, a young trans woman, and destruction of her property. He'd been cyber stalking the same girl and posting images he'd taken of her for some time.

I'd be happy for him to get some jail time for reflection, but the experience is likely to make him even more bitter, and more dangerous on his release.

It's also an own goal. Glinner claims he wishes to live in the US to kickstart his career - with a criminal convictions like these his visa might well be declined. What goes around ...

 

[AuroraSaab]

I never say that ''men only count as trans if they have a GRC''.

In regards to prisons you've said it frequently.
It allows you to dismiss the stats that show that transwomen offend at the same rate as other men, if not worse.

What I do say is that trans women with a GRC are women as provided for in law. It's a legal contract with the state with all the terms and provisions decided by the state.

But when the EHRC issued guidance that this wasn't the case in terms of the Equality Act you wouldn't accept it.

I never ask you to agree with the law, merely that you recognise the law; something you refuse to do.

The Supreme Court have clarified what the law meant in respect of the Equality Act - in fact what it always meant. It's you who refuses to recognise it.

Trans women with a GRC are not merely given a piece of paper, they are given the legal right to live as a woman; also the state must accordingly provide the duty of protection of those rights equally as to cis women.

Their rights are protected under the characteristic of gender reassignment. There is no duty to give them the same rights as women.

We might agree that the state is guilty of failing cis women as it is failing trans women. A united front of both groups would be much more effective in reminding them of their legal obligations than engaging the government in the exercise of illegitimate discrimination.

This is forced teaming. The interests of women and men who wish they were women are not the same. In fact they would undermine women's rights as we've seen for the last 10 years.

Very odd that you should say that I obviously can not know much about women. That's the very same kind of elitism that lesbian women experience from women who feel smug and superior for having shagged men and baked babies. Apparently lesbians are not womanly enough either to be considered along side you. As for the Supreme Court judges making rulings on who a lesbian can have sex with and retain the right to call herself a lesbian, they like you can go 'f*ck themselves. If I was to decide to enter into marriage with a trans woman with a GRC, it would be recorded as a same sex marriage; so imagine two people with female birth certificates in a same sex marriage being told by some crusty old hetties that despite this you are not legally lesbians is beyond the pale.

I say this despite the fact that I am a cis woman openly in a long-term with another cis woman, and never having either been married or having baked babies. I have nonetheless raised one child as if she is my own, and probably with more affection and devotion than you are capable of.

Nothing to do with being womanly.
Lesbians are simply same sex attracted women. They are not men. They are certainly not 2 men in a relationship with each other. They have every right to exclude men from their events, bars, clubs, or anywhere else, when it's reasonable to do so.

Words have meaning and the word lesbian becomes meaningless if any man can be one.

You've spent pages and pages on here telling us what the law is and how we must obey it whether we like it or not. Now it's clarified that you were wrong, and it isn't and never was the law, you pretend it can be ignored.

All that pretending, day in day out. It must be exhausting being you.