Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

Again, whatever my avatar history, it does not prove that N is not a real person. If you can not distinguish between her presentation of legal matters and mine, then you maybe aren't the investigator that you think. She invited the forum to engage with her for a chat about the legal stuff. You didn't take her up on it.

No one took you up on it. I think you've continually overegged the custard and the penny dropped with a few people.

Make your pro trans arguments. Let them stand on their own merit and stop this claim to authority of I'm a lesbian/I'm a woman/my expert relative says. It's all a pretence.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I's odd,

Well if you say so ...

I'm still wondering what frightens you about what another person choses to do.

By another person you mean men. Men in women's sports, prisons, refuges, changing rooms..... I think women have every right to be concerned about that.

 

[monkers]

No one took you up on it. I think you've continually overegged the custard and the penny dropped with a few people.

Make your pro trans arguments. Let them stand on their own merit and stop this claim to authority of I'm a lesbian/I'm a woman/my expert relative says. It's all a pretence.

I am a woman and I happen to be a lesbian.

My cousin T is a retired GP and her husband a retired surgeon.

My niece is a barrister though currently doing other work.

Why is it not possible that I have a family. and they work or are retired from work.

As for claiming my avatar history which, rather weirdly, you've chosen to copy, is proof of anything to the contrary I don't understand.

This is so weird.

 

[classic33]

Well if you say so ...


By another person you mean men. Men in women's sports, prisons, refuges, changing rooms..... I think women have every right to be concerned about that.

I did say so.

No, I do mean what another person chooses to do.
Please stop twisting my words to suit yourself.

 

[CXRAndy]

You could have been, when you luvvies were all in support of 𝕏 before EM bought it

 

[monkers]

Fancy being so afraid of somebody like this ...


View: https://youtu.be/3bPN2WW8zy8

 

[AuroraSaab]

Not many trans identifying men look like that but nonetheless small, feminine looking young men are still men. Access to women's single sex spaces and services isn't based on how men look.

 

[monkers]

Not many trans identifying men look like that but nonetheless small, feminine looking young men are still men. Access to women's single sex spaces and services isn't based on how men look.

Oh it is now - see the interim guidance. The EHRC allow people now to judge people by perception, which according to the EqA is unlawful. That's the omnishambles state they've got themselves in.

In the case of Ace, she is the example of how a young trans woman can shine and flourish when all the correct support is in place - the very support you campaigned to have removed from them.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Only in certain exceptional circumstances. This is the example they give. It makes it clear that excluding a trans identifying woman may well be discriminatory unless there are reasonable circumstances such as:

If your argument is that harmless looking, feminine acting Ace should have access to women's spaces then that access must also be given to any man who claims to be trans regardless of what he looks like. I could put some photos up of less endearing looking trans identifying men if you like.

 

[monkers]

Only in certain exceptional circumstances. This is the example they give. It makes it clear that excluding a trans identifying woman may well be discriminatory unless there are reasonable circumstances such as:

View attachment 8470

If your argument is that harmless looking, feminine acting Ace should have access to women's spaces then that access must also be given to any man who claims to be trans regardless of what he looks like. I could put some photos up of less endearing looking trans identifying men if you like.

You wouldn't think for a moment that she has a trans history. Therefore what you are saying is that all women now have to prove that they are women. The trouble is since the SC ruling, a woman's birth certificate is not worth the paper it's written on. Still this is what you wanted isn't it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Access to women's spaces is not based on looking feminine. Feminine looking men are still men. It's funny how men don't have any trouble deciding who the women are when they want to take their stuff but now all of a sudden actual women need a certificate because nobody can possibly tell any more.

 

[classic33]

Access to women's spaces is not based on looking feminine. Feminine looking men are still men. It's funny how men don't have any trouble deciding who the women are when they want to take their stuff but now all of a sudden actual women need a certificate because nobody can possibly tell any more.

So now you swing back to what your last but two argument was. Having just posted the piece about trans men, who you say aren't men, being in the wrong place.

You sound as though you've confused yourself

 

[AuroraSaab]

Trans identifying women are women and are allowed in female spaces .... because they are women. The EHRC guidance makes clear that this is the case, with the exception of unusual circumstances such as the one outlined in the guidance. It also says they should not be left without facilities.

People like you will seek to use this to say 'But ..but... transmen are banned from women's spaces now because it's all based on looks now...'. This is your usual disingenuous take. When you wanted men to be allowed in women's spaces no proof was required for them, looks didn't matter, and just saying 'I'm a woman' was enough. Now every woman needs a birth certificate with her apparently and unfeminine ones aren't allowed.

 

[monkers]

Trans identifying women are women and are allowed in female spaces .... because they are women. The EHRC guidance makes clear that this is the case, with the exception of unusual circumstances such as the one outlined in the guidance. It also says they should not be left without facilities.

People like you will seek to use this to say 'But ..but... transmen are banned from women's spaces now because it's all based on looks now...'. This is your usual disingenuous take. When you wanted men to be allowed in women's spaces no proof was required for them, looks didn't matter, and just saying 'I'm a woman' was enough. Now every woman needs a birth certificate with her apparently and unfeminine ones aren't allowed.

Careful, you'll upset the anti-essentialist feminist lobby.

 

[classic33]

Trans identifying women are women and are allowed in female spaces .... because they are women. The EHRC guidance makes clear that this is the case, with the exception of unusual circumstances such as the one outlined in the guidance. It also says they should not be left without facilities.

People like you will seek to use this to say 'But ..but... transmen are banned from women's spaces now because it's all based on looks now...'. This is your usual disingenuous take. When you wanted men to be allowed in women's spaces no proof was required for them, looks didn't matter, and just saying 'I'm a woman' was enough. Now every woman needs a birth certificate with her apparently and unfeminine ones aren't allowed.

But that's not what you've said.
Which is it?

It's not "my take", it's what you posted. And again you twist the few words I did say to suit your own ends. And claiming I've said stuff I haven't. You're twisting your own words here.