Gender again. Sorry!

[CXRAndy]

This fella absolutely nails the point.

View: https://x.com/i/status/2012961325211668874

Why those who use gender will never admit they're wrong

 

[CXRAndy]

View: https://x.com/i/status/2013242157411213459

 

[monkers]

My views on 3rd spaces have been given many times in this thread. What we're seeing now is linguistic gymnastics so we can provide a platform to be mansplained why men with a GRC are supposedly still entitled to access women's spaces.

I haven't noticed anybody say such a thing in this recent conversation. The conversation is to do with the Darlington nurses, and no person has posted either that Rose Henderson has a GRC, or that Rose Henderson is judged by the tribunal to be lawfully permitted to use that space.

You have the opportunity to answer a simple straightforward question about three marked doors - women only changing, men only changing, communal changing. Does one of the three marked doors meet your needs? Yes or no will suffice, but embellishment welcome.

 

[CXRAndy]

The NHS is captured with trans ideology, tried to railroad the women into accepting males in female changing areas.


View: https://x.com/i/status/2013241889751810521

 

[AuroraSaab]

I haven't noticed anybody say such a thing in this recent conversation. The conversation is to do with the Darlington nurses, and no person has posted either that Rose Henderson has a GRC, or that Rose Henderson is judged by the tribunal to be lawfully permitted to use that space.

You have the opportunity to answer a simple straightforward question about three marked doors - women only changing, men only changing, communal changing. Does one of the three marked doors meet your needs? Yes or no will suffice, but embellishment welcome.

Third spaces. Fill your boots. You just want a platform to tell us all why you're entitled to go in the women's changing rooms even when there's a mixed sex option. I don't know why you just don't get on with telling us and stop wasting our time with a repetitive bad faith question.

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/search/1...c[thread]=273&c[users]=AuroraSaab&o=relevance

 

[monkers]

Third spaces. Fill your boots. You just want a platform to tell us all why you're entitled to go in the women's changing rooms even when there's a mixed sex option. I don't know why you just don't get on with telling us and stop wasting our time with a repetitive bad faith question.

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/search/1...c[thread]=273&c[users]=AuroraSaab&o=relevance

Sounds like paranoia setting in. It was a straightforward question about the wording on the doors, nothing bad faith about it. If the answer had been ''yes'' then I would have said that such a set up would have made the Darlington policy workable, and pointed out this would establish that the failure was not the policy but the implementation. That was only only point I was hoping we could then find agreement on.

 

[CXRAndy]

It was a policy decision not to provide 'other' for Tims. Nothing to do with failure to implement.

The NHS as like so many organisations are still wilfully ignoring Supreme Court and tribunal decisions.

It has nothing to do with government stalling guidance either.

 

[monkers]

It was a policy decision not to provide 'other' for Tims. Nothing to do with failure to implement.

The NHS as like so many organisations are still wilfully ignoring Supreme Court and tribunal decisions.

It has nothing to do with government stalling guidance either.

I'm ever so sure that the Trust can not survive without your advice. Please update us here on the thanks that you receive.

 

[spen666]

It was done. Either you missed it or are playing at being Captain Awkward.

You have not as far as I am aware posted which papragpraph of the 134 page judgement stated this.

you have poisted someone's interpretation of the judgement and posted paragraphs that do not make any reference to the policy of the NHS Trust being lawful.
so much bluster, word salads, posts about negative rights etc, but not a simple post saying which paragraph or paragraphs of the judgement find the policy was lawful.

if you have as you claim posted the paragraph(s), then it would be easy to shut me up and prove me wrong by simply reposting which paragraph(s) it was. The paragraphs are numbered in the judgement so we can be certain which paragraph you are referring to if you post the number.


You accuse me of being awkward, but for days now across many posts you refuse to post the paragraph(s) that support your claim that the first tier tribunal found the NHS policy lawful.

Many people would thing avoiding posting the paragraph(s) in the judgement that declared the NHS Trust policy lawful is being awkward.


me? i just want to know the paragraph(s) so I can read them for myself and make my mind up about the judgement

 

[CXRAndy]

I'm ever so sure that the Trust can not survive without your advice. Please update us here on the thanks that you receive.

Not my advice, just observations, the failure to implement the Supreme Courts decision.

 

[monkers]

You have not as far as I am aware posted which papragpraph of the 134 page judgement stated this.

you have poisted someone's interpretation of the judgement and posted paragraphs that do not make any reference to the policy of the NHS Trust being lawful.
so much bluster, word salads, posts about negative rights etc, but not a simple post saying which paragraph or paragraphs of the judgement find the policy was lawful.

if you have as you claim posted the paragraph(s), then it would be easy to shut me up and prove me wrong by simply reposting which paragraph(s) it was. The paragraphs are numbered in the judgement so we can be certain which paragraph you are referring to if you post the number.


You accuse me of being awkward, but for days now across many posts you refuse to post the paragraph(s) that support your claim that the first tier tribunal found the NHS policy lawful.

Many people would thing avoiding posting the paragraph(s) in the judgement that declared the NHS Trust policy lawful is being awkward.


me? i just want to know the paragraph(s) so I can read them for myself and make my mind up about the judgement

I previously copied two paragraphs lifted directly from the judgment including the paragraph numbers.

The first, the outcome of the test of the legitimate aim.

Was the purpose of the Trust in permitting Rose to share the changing room/ requiring the Claimants to share it with Rose (or any other trans woman) to violate the dignity of the Claimants or to create the proscribed environment?

362. We are satisfied that this was not its purpose. Its purpose was to create an environment that gave transgender employees comfort and reassurance that they would be accepted and supported in the workplace. We observe this is an admirable and noble purpose. All good employers will look to ensure that all its staff are treated with respect. We are only too aware that transgender people are vulnerable to exclusion, abuse, mistreatment, lack of respect and misunderstanding in society. Nothing we say in this judgment should detract from that or be seen as diminishing the values that the Trust espouses in supporting its transgender staff.

Secondly the failure to implement.

What was the effect of the conduct?

363. We were however satisfied that despite the admirable purpose of seeking to include transpeople in the workplace and make them feel included, the implementation of the part of the TIW policy that effectively required the Claimants to share with Rose had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and of creating for them a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.

 

[monkers]

Not my advice, just observations, the failure to implement the Supreme Courts decision.

I know you think yourself a bro twin of Elon Musk once inside a Tesla, but trust me you need a DeLorean so that you can go back and give your wonderful ''observations'' of the future to the policy author in 2020.

 

[AuroraSaab]

None of that says the policy was lawful. It just says the Trust's overall wish to make trans people feel supported in the workplace was a noble aim, and that violating the nurses dignity wasn't a deliberate aim. Nowhere does it say that the policy of admitting transwomen to women's facilities was lawful.

If the answer had been ''yes'' then I would have said that such a set up would have made the Darlington policy workable, and pointed out this would establish that the failure was not the policy but the implementation. That was only only point I was hoping we could then find agreement on.

The policy wasn't that there should be a mixed sex option for staff changing in addition to single sex though. Allowing him access was the policy.

It was the policy that was wrong not simply the implementation. The judge determined it was unlawful.

 

[monkers]

None of that says the policy was lawful. It just says the Trust's overall wish to make trans people feel supported in the workplace was a noble aim, and that violating the nurses dignity wasn't a deliberate aim. Nowhere does it say that the policy of admitting transwomen to women's facilities was lawful.

View attachment 12398



The policy wasn't that there should be a mixed sex option for staff changing in addition to single sex though. Allowing him access was the policy.

It was the policy that was wrong not simply the implementation. The judge determined it was unlawful.

I've worked hard enough on the explanation, but if you are not interested in truth, then I'm not so bothered. In the meantime we can forget about charging people with knife attacks, and charge the knives for the offences instead, clearly inanimate objects are more culpable than people. The operative word in the judgment is ''conduct''.

 

[AuroraSaab]

'If the policy hadn't been the policy then it would have been workable'. Genius.