Gender again. Sorry!

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

monkers

Shaman
Transgender people risk being excluded from many public spaces as a result of the recent UK supreme court judgment and must be protected from discrimination, a human rights expert has said.

That's not true - they can use the services aligned to their biological sex.
There is no discrimination.

Remember female is recognised by biology not feelings

I agree, all parties are unhinged

Define ''discrimination''.
 

CXRAndy

Squire
when one party is disadvantaged over another.

That would be women being disadvantaged by accepting males into their spaces.

Males can use their alloted spaces, including all those who think they're something else. Fundamentally there are only males and females by biology
 

AuroraSaab

Pharaoh
Not really no. He was merely the rapporteur who drafted the principles based on the output from the Yogyakarta meeting.
He's literally listed as one of the authors on the actual document, along with trans activist Stephen Whittle. His contribution was such that they gave him extra credit at the end:

Screenshot_20251023_133711_Chrome.jpg

One of the other authors, Professor Robin Wintemute, has since withdrawn his support saying that zero consideration was given to the effect the document might have on women's rights.

Nobody is being excluded from public life. People are simply being asked to not use the services of the other sex in a very few instances where sex matters. When you allow men into women's spaces you risk excluding women.
 

icowden

Shaman
He's literally listed as one of the authors on the actual document, along with trans activist Stephen Whittle. His contribution was such that they gave him extra credit at the end:
And yet you just showed an image confirming him as rapporteur. One of is very important as many people were involved. It's not clear whether he was involved with the second revision.
 

monkers

Shaman
when one party is disadvantaged over another.

That would be women being disadvantaged by accepting males into their spaces.

Males can use their alloted spaces, including all those who think they're something else. Fundamentally there are only males and females by biology

There are two separate definitions in use, and sorry to say that you have them confused.

The ability to separate male and female by reproductive capacity form birth is a discrimination - and a sound one if that potential is the only consideration. This would be a legitimate basis for breeders to consider. If viewed through the lens that the 'meaning of life' is solely that potential to breed rather than be concerned with human happiness or whatever, that is legitimate - otherwise it's a fail.

That ties with human intelligence, the ability to discriminate between things by difference, the bee from the wasp, the bicycle from the tricycle etc. So in that way, the midwife discriminates between boys and girls on that basis, but the midwife is not being discriminatory about their treatment in the world - that much is beyond her.

Discrimination under the law is something entirely different and relates to being treated either more or otherwise less favourably within whatever system is being examined.

In effect you've not managed to discriminate between the two definitions of 'discrimination'. The two are commonly conflated in argument to cement an argument as a matter of fact - and that is why the argument is irrational and fails.
 
Last edited:

monkers

Shaman
He's literally listed as one of the authors on the actual document, along with trans activist Stephen Whittle. His contribution was such that they gave him extra credit at the end:

View attachment 10673
One of the other authors, Professor Robin Wintemute, has since withdrawn his support saying that zero consideration was given to the effect the document might have on women's rights.

Nobody is being excluded from public life. People are simply being asked to not use the services of the other sex in a very few instances where sex matters. When you allow men into women's spaces you risk excluding women.

Simply is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting there.

Human rights advocates are not trans activists - we are campaigners for the rights of all people. That is a fact rather than an opinion.

If it's an opinion you are fishing for, I think the Orangutans should enjoy the same rights as humans in regards to security and safety of the individual.
 

AuroraSaab

Pharaoh
Sometimes rights or, in the case of trans activism desires, clash. We all know why women and girls have single sex spaces. It's disingenuous to pretend that women's rights are not impinged on by allowing men into those spaces.
 

CXRAndy

Squire
There are two separate definitions in use, and sorry to say that you have them confused.

The ability to separate male and female by reproductive capacity form birth is a discrimination - and a sound one if that potential is the only consideration. This would be a legitimate basis for breeders to consider. If viewed through the lens that the 'meaning of life' is solely that potential to breed rather than be concerned with human happiness or whatever, that is legitimate - otherwise it's a fail.

That ties with human intelligence, the ability to discriminate between things by difference, the bee from the wasp, the bicycle from the tricycle etc. So in that way, the midwife discriminates between boys and girls on that basis, but the midwife is not being discriminatory about their treatment in the world - that much is beyond her.

Discrimination under the law is something entirely different and relates to being treated either more or otherwise less favourably within whatever system is being examined.

In effect you've not managed to discriminate between the two definitions of 'discrimination'. The two are commonly conflated in argument to cement an argument as a matter of fact - and that is why the argument is irrational and fails.
Lots of waffle for justifying a human rights lawyer wages.

Emperors new clothes

KISS
 

CXRAndy

Squire
You've just outed yourself in the belief that I am in fact a human rights lawyer. Now you have something correct. Well done.

Astonishing the pendulum opinion meter, one minute, Im a shithead, next full of praise. :laugh:

If you look back I said I wasnt bothered what you decided you were. :okay:
 

monkers

Shaman
Last edited:
Top Bottom