What is a woman?

[spen666]

That will be because on these forums there are those few people who demonstrate that they enjoy the cruelty of ridicule and ritual humiliation of others. Anti-discriminations laws manage to put a stop to it. Anybody who laughs at children with (for example) Downs Syndrome are quickly identified by whatever term you wish to call them - ''utter bellends or what you will'' - yet I'm sure you remember that abusive terms often applied to people with Downs Syndrome.

The chants against trans people is ''look at the biology'', but with recognition that it isn't fair to look at the biology as a just reason to discriminate against those people with Downs Syndrome.

Women who have a diagnosis of psychopathic tendencies are not prevented from using women's toilets - so clearly it is not an issue about safety - and anyway the available data does nothing to suggest that a trans woman with a GRC is a danger to women.

So there's a group in society who need some group of people to ridicule, humiliate and abuse. They even publicly admit that the last group of people that is available to them are people with ginger hair - thereby admitting they are frustrated by a need - they have to have some group of people to abuse and to punish.

A group of people, including so-called academics crafted a narrative to justify their needs and satisfy their lust to ridicule.

Our job in society is to protect all people against ritual humiliation - that's why we have human rights laws that seek to protect everyone.

Alternatively, the Supreme Court simply looked at the relevant legislation and interpreted it
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court made no mention of people with downs syndrome, nor did the Supreme Court unlawfully discriminate against any group. Indeed the Supreme Court were at pains to say its judgement should not be seen as a victory for any group and expressly reference the existing legal provisions making discrimination against trans people a crime.

Far more balanced than some

 

[monkers]

Alternatively, the Supreme Court simply looked at the relevant legislation and interpreted it
I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court made no mention of people with downs syndrome, nor did the Supreme Court unlawfully discriminate against any group. Indeed the Supreme Court were at pains to say its judgement should not be seen as a victory for any group and expressly reference the existing legal provisions making discrimination against trans people a crime.

Far more balanced than some

In the 88 page judgment, they made clear in Paragraph 2 what their job was. Then they chose to abandon what they clearly identified as their brief, and did something different. By their own terms - they failed.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There's no group's suffering you won't appropriate in order to get men into women's spaces and services; the holocaust, black people.... now it's Downes kids. Unbelievable.

 

[AndyRM]

Embrace the suffering.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Why not embrace it? Gas chambers, racial segregation, calling Downes kids names, it's nothing compared to what a man has to go through when he can't access women's spaces.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Why not embrace it? Gas chambers, racial segregation, calling Downes kids names, it's nothing compared to what a man has to go through when he can't access women's spaces.

Careful, you know @classic33 is reading this.

 

[AndyRM]

It was a cycling joke. Oh well.

 

[CXRAndy]

Interesting argument, all businesses and every services will fall into line re women only safe places.

It will come down to insurance, which businesses will need. Not complying with the law will mean no insurance cover.

Always down to money 👍

 

[AuroraSaab]

It was a cycling joke. Oh well.

Sorry, Andy. It's not a phrase I'm familiar with.
Would've looked it up but I was busy replying to a now deleted bat shoot post where I was accused of calling for genocide.

 

[AndyRM]

Sorry, Andy. It's not a phrase I'm familiar with.
Would've looked it up but I was busy replying to a now deleted bat shoot post where I was accused of calling for genocide.

There are many variations of it.

 

[monkers]

Sorry, Andy. It's not a phrase I'm familiar with.
Would've looked it up but I was busy replying to a now deleted bat shoot post where I was accused of calling for genocide.

You have been actively pursuing a policy of cultural genocide. That is not in question. You want trans people to have no rights at all - that is cultural genocide.

 

[spen666]

In the 88 page judgment, they made clear in Paragraph 2 what their job was. Then they chose to abandon what they clearly identified as their brief, and did something different. By their own terms - they failed.

You'd better tell the Supreme Court that all those lawyers with decades of legal experience got it wrong.
Strangely enough I know which of the Judges at the Supreme Court and you I would have more faith in getting the law correct.
The Supreme Court have not failed simply because you disagree with their decision. The Court did exactly what it set out as its role in paragraph 2 of the judgement and did it very skilfully and with great legal clarity

 

[monkers]

You'd better tell the Supreme Court that all those lawyers with decades of legal experience got it wrong.
Strangely enough I know which of the Judges at the Supreme Court and you I would have more faith in getting the law correct.
The Supreme Court have not failed simply because you disagree with their decision. The Court did exactly what it set out as its role in paragraph 2 of the judgement and did it very skilfully and with great legal clarity

We will have to disagree. You can't tell me you are right and I am wrong without first asking my reasoning. Therefore your reasoning by default is incorrect.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You have been actively pursuing a policy of cultural genocide. That is not in question. You want trans people to have no rights at all - that is cultural genocide.

You said I was 'calling for the genocide of people with human rights', not cultural genocide. At least you realised it was ridiculous and deleted. Trans people have the same rights as everyone else, plus ones that protect their gender identity. These rights don't trump the rights of others though and it's not genocide of any kind to protect the rights of others.

 

[spen666]

We will have to disagree. You can't tell me you are right and I am wrong without first asking my reasoning. Therefore your reasoning by default is incorrect.

Erm

You are the one telling people they are incorrect.
The most senior court in the land have issued a judgement on a leagal point and you are telling this forum they are wrong

Going round shouting everyone else is wrong/incorrect/ failing etc is not the most convincing argument.
You may not like the judgement of the court ( and there is no reason you shouldn't), but that alone does not make it wrong.
The court have issued a detailed and forensic analysis of the law in its 88 page judgement and I have seen nothing in your posts to challenge that legal analysis, merely cries that everyone who does not hold your view is wrong.

If you opened your mind, you would realise I have not commented on the merits of the case at all, merely commented on the validity of the Supreme Court & its vast legal experience