Jump to content
Gym Beglin

Transgender stuff - what's going on?

Recommended Posts

A few points

 

1:A GRC does not give transwomen access to women only toilets. There are exceptions to the equality act

 

2:There is a legal requirement that employers have to provide women only toilets. Thus despite the dodgy advice of Stonewall that it is illegal to exclude transwomen from women only toilets it is nonsense.

 

3:Using the Gillick principle in relation to puberty blockers is a false equivalence. This related to children under the age of 16 being given the pill without the knowledge/consent of the parents. This does not have long term health consequences. However, Puberty Blockers do

 

P.S Dave Chappelle was spot on in his latest Netflix special

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:


Well it seems that Trans rights outweighs women’s rights as their cause is deemed more important than say black people getting equal rights.

Nah.

I don't know anyone in real life who prioritises trans rights over other people's rights.

 

Here's the thing about human rights: it's not a zero sum game. Giving rights to one group of people does not subtract rights from anyone else.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recognising that biological sex is not strictly binary - that, like most things in science, "it's more complicated than that" - is really not "denying biological sex".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rico1304 said:

So say a group of lesbians shouldn’t be able to have an event that excludes men? Makes perfect sense to me.  
 

AoT talking complete bollocks again. Sex is binary, the existence of DSD doesn’t disprove this and people with DSDs really don’t like their conditions being used this way.  A manly man and an effeminate man are still men.  Spectrum my arse.  

You forgot to add "Madness."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Recognising that biological sex is not strictly binary - that, like most things in science, "it's more complicated than that" - is really not "denying biological sex".

Ideology over science.  Who’d have thought it? Where does that usually end up?  
 

This doesn’t do anything other than muddy the waters.  We aren’t talking about people with DSDs we are generally talking men who want to ‘become’ women. Which is impossible.  They can’t change sex. They can have plastic surgery but that’s it. Nothing changes.  In fact without massive amounts of drugs and follow ups the body tries to heal that sore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Nah.

I don't know anyone in real life who prioritises trans rights over other people's rights.

 

Here's the thing about human rights: it's not a zero sum game. Giving rights to one group of people does not subtract rights from anyone else.

Oh so you don’t know anyone so it’s not happening. I don’t know anyone who does, but it’s out there happening. 

 

A large section of the Trans group are doing exactly just what say shouldn’t happen. 
 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

Oh so you don’t know anyone so it’s not happening. I don’t know anyone who does, but it’s out there happening. 

 

A large section of the Trans group are doing exactly just what say shouldn’t happen. 
 

 

I'm not just talking about people I know. Anyone I have even seen online or on telly saying "let's not be shit to trans people" never follows up with "let's be shit to other people instead".

 

I really doubt that it's a "large" section of the trans community who behave horribly. Most people just want to live their own lives.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Nah.

I don't know anyone in real life who prioritises trans rights over other people's rights.

 

Here's the thing about human rights: it's not a zero sum game. Giving rights to one group of people does not subtract rights from anyone else.

 

I disagree. Granting rights to group A which group B have fought long long and hard for and which are attached to that group does detract from group B.

 

So women have fought long and hard to get access to male dominated professions. So some parties have initiated women only shortlists for choosing a candidate for a constituency. This is a right given to group B (women) which they have fought for so that we can change the perception and operation of certain professions so we can change cognitive bias and self-cloning of the profession. Women (group B) have fought long and hard for this. There will only be a certain number of opportunities linked to this. There are a finite number of spots available.

 

Then group A (men who say they feel like a woman and hence are) now demand access to this. They demand to be put on all female short lists. This does remove rights and opportunities from group B.

 

We need always remember formal rights (the rule which allows you to do something) and substantive rights (having the resource to do something) cannot be separated and the latter is determined by finite resources.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I'm not just talking about people I know. Anyone I have even seen online or on telly saying "let's not be shit to trans people" never follows up with "let's be shit to other people instead".

 

I really doubt that it's a "large" section of the trans community who behave horribly. Most people just want to live their own lives.

 

You are missing the point. 
 

Massively. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/09/2021 at 23:30, AngryOfTuebrook said:

I've never given it any thought. I wouldn't express an opinion on that unless I'd properly informed myself first and, frankly, I can't be arsed.

Just coming back to this Angry of Tuebrook, why can't you be arsed?

You have a lot to say, in defence of transgender rights which I respect, but can't be arsed to inform yourself about one of the most contentious issues around transgender rights? Female sports and fair competition has been at the heart of some of the most heated debate yet you don't appear to deem it worthy of your time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

You'll be relieved to know that nobody is campaigning for "men who say they feel like women" to take women's jobs.

 

Actually they are. That is what transwomen are. They are born men, say they feel like and identify as a woman and hence expect us all to treat and accept them as women including putting them on all women short lists and giving them woman of the year awards.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some win these awards after only being women for a matter of months, or even more absurdly being women part time and men the other half of the week.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, redheart said:

A GRC does not give transwomen access to women only toilets. There are exceptions to the equality act

You're right, it would be inappropriate, excessive and possibly illegal to request to see one.

 

However, it has been deemed discriminatory to exclude transwoman from the ladies previously. So, I don't know where the assumption that all women's toilets fall under an exception comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Pidge said:

You're right, it would be inappropriate, excessive and possibly illegal to request to see one.

 

However, it has been deemed discriminatory to exclude transwoman from the ladies previously. So, I don't know where the assumption that all women's toilets fall under an exception comes from.

They are single sex spaces. Have you any details on where not allowing men into them has been discriminatory? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

They are single sex spaces. Have you any details on where not allowing men into them has been discriminatory? 

Who says they are? The act talks about legitimate reasons, but what's the test for that? I see plenty of areas where exclusions would be necessary and proportionate, I don't think it's justified as a universal rule though, nor stated as such. It's certainly not clear cut in our law, hence the current consultation. Unless there's an offence it would be deemed as a civil matter, quite often the abuse of the trans person could be deemed as the greater offence. That's often the end result of prejudice and fearmongering.

 

It was a case from 2014 I saw the other day, plus government guidance from shortly afterwards advising service providers to generally treat people as the sex they present as. Obviously might be out of date already as things have changed, hence my questions. Will try and get links later but a bit busy today.

 

The fact is that, just as with AML regs and GDPR a lot of the rules that come out of of the EU come down to the interpretation of principles, there's scope for variation throughout. It needs to be tested in court, in which case there should be clear examples of what happens when it is.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Pidge said:

Who says they are? The act talks about legitimate reasons, but what's the test for that? I see plenty of areas where exclusions would be necessary and proportionate, I don't think it's justified as a universal rule though, nor stated as such. It's certainly not clear cut in our law, hence the current consultation. Unless there's an offence it would be deemed as a civil matter, quite often the abuse of the trans person could be deemed as the greater offence. That's often the end result of prejudice and fearmongering.

 

It was a case from 2014 I saw the other day, plus government guidance from shortly afterwards advising service providers to generally treat people as the sex they present as. Obviously might be out of date already as things have changed, hence my questions. Will try and get links later but a bit busy today.

 

The fact is that, just as with AML regs and GDPR a lot of the rules that come out of of the EU come down to the interpretation of principles, there's scope for variation throughout. It needs to be tested in court, in which case there should be clear examples of what happens when it is.

Thanks. Would be interested in that. 
 

‘Present as’ is doing a lot of work there.  Would you agree that say a TW who has a beard would not be presenting as a woman? Or that say someone working with Pippa Bunce could have a genuine concern that she is able to use both sets of loos depending on her mood? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This lesbian only festival - if they had a rule saying only lesbians of white origin can attend, would your response be the same about it? 

 

Would it fuck. Therefore you think Racism is wrong but Transphobia is OK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×