Gender again. Sorry!

[multitool]

I wonder how many assaults/pervings actually happen in toilets, given that in reality anybody can just walk in.

Maybe this is just one big red herring and is more about certain people finding an excuse to exercise their bigotries, rather than actually making a difference to women's experiences.

My wife works in an environment with a disproporionately high number of trans women. Yet to hear of all these putative assaults in the loos at her work, or even Aurora-style pearl clutching over 'dignity'.

 

[monkers]

I asked you for a link but you haven't provided it.

Yes I have.

 

[monkers]

Who said this? No prizes, but have fun ...

I'm not gender critical because what the freck does gender mean? And I don't believe that women don't have penises: I know that women have penises?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Who said this? No prizes, but have fun ...

Was it Kier Starmer?

 

[monkers]

Was it Kier Starmer?

Nope.

 

[classic33]

Disabled toilets are one room with locking door, so are safe for anyone to use

And the other disabled facilities?
Should they be open to anyone, even if they're not disabled.
What about the rights, the safety and dignity of the disabled using those facilities?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Trademark whataboutery from Aurora, when pinned down about her use of language.

I'm not sure you're in a position to lecture me about semantics when you think the word Woman means everybody.

It's no wonder so many (7?) have left because of you.

Only 7? It's got to be double figures by now surely. You're forgetting to include the many others who have stopped posting or reading in the last year or so. I'm claiming those now too.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Disabled facilities are the "go to" when there's any issue with the ones people normally use. Pushing disabled people out by denying them access.
Usually done without any thought given to those they were built for.

Yes, it's wrong when people use facilities and services that were specifically created for another group for valid reasons isn't it?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes I have.

So you did. It's from an info page from the Equalities Office in 2018 talking about the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. It doesn't supercede the recent clarification from the EHRC obviously. It doesn't actually say much different, you're simply giving a particular spin to the 'can't be a blanket ban' line because you're rather prone to grasping at straws.

 

[multitool]

I'm not sure you're in a position to lecture me about semantics when you think the word Woman means everybody.

Another diversion from Aurora.

Only 7? It's got to be double figures by now surely. You're forgetting to include the many others who have stopped posting or reading in the last year or so. I'm claiming those now too.

I only attribute to you the people who have stated openly that they are abandoning the thread because of you, and it's seven.

It's only fair. Trying to ascribe other departures to you, with zero proof, would be stupid and dishonest, wouldn't it, Aurora.

 

[Deleted member 159]

Way to go, 7 knockouts

 

[monkers]

So you did. It's from an info page from the Equalities Office in 2018 talking about the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. It doesn't supercede the recent clarification from the EHRC obviously. It doesn't actually say much different, you're simply giving a particular spin to the 'can't be a blanket ban' line because you're rather prone to grasping at straws.

It's not my 'spin' - it's the wording from the Government's own Equalities Office. EHRC are not saying the same thing as the Equality Office had already stated in its fact sheet. Therefore the non-statutory 'advice' from the EHRC does not reflect the legal position. That is because the appointments made to the EHRC have been made by the most vocal of anti-trans ministers, namely Truss and Badenoch to reflect their personal views and not the views of the two houses of parliament that made the law. Still too difficult for you?

 

[monkers]

Who said this? No prizes, but have fun ...

No more guesses? OK I'm going to have to tell you. It was this person ...


View: https://twitter.com/i/status/1777771862438694925

 

[classic33]

Yes, it's wrong when people use facilities and services that were specifically created for another group for valid reasons isn't it?

When its down solely because the majority feel they can tell a minority to get out because they're too lazy to use what was put in place for them, I'd say so. And they're normally unisex as well.

Is there any other majority group that's as lazy? I will add it usually able bodied, self-entitled women who insist that their needs overrule the needs of those the facilities were created for.
Why is that?

 

[classic33]

Only 7? It's got to be double figures by now surely. You're forgetting to include the many others who have stopped posting or reading in the last year or so. I'm claiming those now too.

You sound proud of what you feel you've "achieved" in your short time here. Carrying all your hatred from previous threads with you.

Yet you're one of the first to claim that others are doing exactly what you are boasting about having done.