Gender again. Sorry!

[spen666]

The model is of bodily autonomy and consent. That's the standard for cis people and the standard for trans people.

Some people study their internalised beliefs and traits more than others. There is no fixed and acceptable narrative around being trans - we are just all more different to you, just as other cis people are different to you. A child with Down's syndrome is different to me and to you, but their life is just as valid.

Nature never built us to be that same, never intends us to look the same, believe the same, or conduct ourselves the same.

People do not have to constrain or frame their existence to imitate you. How sure are you that nature says you are the perfect specimen that the rest of humanity must model themselves on?

Just leave people be.

What like letting biological women use toilets designed for them without allowing non biological women in them.
Why these women seem to be excluded from your desire to let these (biological women) people be is difficult to reconcile.

 

[CXRAndy]

There does not exist a trans child or baby, just mentally ill adults who put sick ideas into vulnerable kids

 

[monkers]

Old news since it was the middle of last week.

Not absorbed the detail but I think GLP's standing was an issue.

Indeed. School level errors made in both Sex Matters v City of London, and GLP v EHRC.

Nutshell version -

Sex Matters (sole complainant) have standing as a charity but not an individual with a detriment. High Court is not a court of first instance.

GLP v EHRC (GLP as primary complainant) - repeat and rinse. Other complainants have standing, but High Court is not a court of first instance. Judge had previously delayed saying he can't listen to a case where the target is moving. Last week examined a withdrawn version of guidance (I can't understand why he'd bother). Otherwise made a mash up of Workplace regs (provision) and EqA (access) saying that the standing for access was in the the WPR and the SC ruling compels reading of access in the EqA as bio. No proper consideration of GRA deeming provision. Also rejects Article 8 implications from Goodwyn because people tittle tattle all the time and trans people just to get over it.

So neither case went well for complainants.

 

[spen666]

So neither case went well for complainants.

Or put simply without the waffle and word salad


The respective complainants lost

 

[AuroraSaab]

There is no fixed and acceptable narrative around being trans - we are just all more different to you, just as other cis people are different to you. A child with Down's syndrome is different to me and to you, but their life is just as valid.

This is the usual trans hyperbole. Everybody's life is valid. Women's lives are valid for example.

Nature never built us to be all the same, never intended us to all look the same, to believe the same, or to conduct ourselves the same.

Nature is nature. It's not a sentient entity with a conscious decision making direction. It doesn't intend anything.

People do not have to constrain or frame their existence to imitate you. How sure are you that nature says you are the perfect specimen that the rest of humanity must model themselves on?

Just leave people be.

I'm 100% sure Nature has no opinion.

Nobody much cares about your internal beliefs. They are the same as any metaphysical beliefs, whether it's astrology or religion. Society makes some accommodation for them but it's unreasonable to expect people to roll over and give you what you want when those beliefs impinge on other people. You could leave women be.

 

[monkers]

Everybody's life is valid.

Agree.

Women's lives are valid for example.

Yes we just agreed that. Why the tautology?

Nature is nature. It's not a sentient entity with a conscious decision making direction. It doesn't intend anything.

Yes, I've already made that point. It's pretty random in its outputs.

I'm 100% sure Nature has no opinion.

Sure. Your point is?

Nobody much cares about your internal beliefs.

I'm not expecting them to. I'm not asking you to care; I'm asking you not to care. So, what's your point? Can we get to your point?

You could leave women be.

Any specific examples of where I haven't? No I thought not.

Nobody much cares about your internal beliefs

Oh there it is, it had to be somewhere. Nobody cares about my beliefs, but everybody must care about yours.

That's the point isn't!? Your lust to be in charge as supreme leader.

No chance of that. Stop trying to control minds. Just let all people be.

Are you The Borg Queen?

Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

 

[CXRAndy]

Oh there it is, it had to be somewhere. Nobody cares about my beliefs, but everybody must care about yours.

No, you can whatever beliefs you choose.

What you cant do is expect others to accept or accommodate those beliefs at their expense, dignity or safety.

 

[classic33]

No, you can whatever beliefs you choose.

What you cant do is expect others to accept or accommodate those beliefs at their expense, dignity or safety.

That last part should cut both ways, but seldom does. It becomes more of a "you're entitled to your opinion, just so long as it aligns with mine, anything else is not acceptable".

 

[CXRAndy]

Women aren't wanting to invade males spaces.
We dont hear TiFs causing any issues. TiFs dont compete in men's or boys sports wonder why?

This trans thing is mainly men with some sort of fetish to be in control of women and invade their spaces

 

[AuroraSaab]

Any specific examples of where I haven't? No I thought not.

You have relentlessly argued on here for men like you to have access to women's spaces; everything from toilets to prisons to sports.

That isn't leaving women alone.