Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Transgender stuff - what's going on?


Gym Beglin
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Nah. Gotta get the terminology right. "Politely decline". Why you would ever say out loud that you would categorically refuse to date anybody is beyond me. Even men if you're straight. It just makes you sound like an insecure asshole.

No, you’ve got to get words right.  There’s nothing in the definition of ‘refuse’ that implies offence. This is mad! 
 

A gay man who says he’s not into women is insecure?  Fucking hell!!!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

No, you’ve got to get words right.  There’s nothing in the definition of ‘refuse’ that implies offence. This is mad! 
 

A gay man who says he’s not into women is insecure?  Fucking hell!!!  

Yeah, I would say so. Why do you need to convince people around you of your sexuality? Who cares? I guarantee no woman worth fucking will want to fuck you if you ever say the words: "men? Ewwww, disgusting. I'm the least gay person you'll ever meet. I refuse to fuck them". I mean, why would you ever have to say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/12/2019 at 21:23, Rico1304 said:

I find it amazing that a woman who fights for women’s rights, is berated for objecting to men being allowed to decide they are women. 
 

it’s truly fucking mental.   

Yeah, kinda seems like you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Yeah, I would say so. Why do you need to convince people around you of your sexuality? Who cares? I guarantee no woman worth fucking will want to fuck you if you ever say the words: "men? Ewwww, disgusting. I'm the least gay person you'll ever meet. I refuse to fuck them". I mean, why would you ever have to say that?

I’m absolutely astounded by this. You are saying that sexual preferences are bad? 
 

im sure I’ve misunderstood your post, and apologise for that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rico1304 said:

Working in one?  

 

No.

Quote

Once a person has been granted a full GRC they have the same rights and responsibilities as their legally acquired gender. So for instance, an employer must treat a transsexual woman with a GRC in the same way as other female employees when it comes to pay. As the same Act prohibits discrimination because of sex, the employer must also treat that person, as a woman, and in a way which is no less favourably than a man.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Duff Man said:

 

No.

 

Yes

 

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals sharing a protected characteristic from discrimination and harassment. Protected characteristics include sex (being a man or a woman) and gender reassignment (an individual who is ‘proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process or part of a process to reassign their sex). There is no requirement for a trans person to have any kind of medical supervision or intervention in order to be protected from gender reassignment discrimination.

Certain exceptions in the Act set out circumstances in which it is permissible to treat someone differently because of their sex or gender reassignment, for reasons of public policy or to protect the rights of others. The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective. This will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Yes

 

The Equality Act 2010 protects individuals sharing a protected characteristic from discrimination and harassment. Protected characteristics include sex (being a man or a woman) and gender reassignment (an individual who is ‘proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process or part of a process to reassign their sex). There is no requirement for a trans person to have any kind of medical supervision or intervention in order to be protected from gender reassignment discrimination.

Certain exceptions in the Act set out circumstances in which it is permissible to treat someone differently because of their sex or gender reassignment, for reasons of public policy or to protect the rights of others. The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective. This will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance.

 

 

Yes, and this is the key bit:

 

"The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective. This will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance. "

 

It just means in some individual cases there may be a reason where different treatment is permissible. That is not the same as trans women with GRCs being prevented from working in rape crisis centers, or having the same rights as cis women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Duff Man said:

 

Yes, and this is the key bit:

 

"The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective. This will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance. "

 

It just means in some individual cases there may be a reason where different treatment is permissible. That is not the same as trans women with GRCs being prevented from working in rape crisis centers, or having the same rights as cis women.

So, there are exceptions, and the example used is exactly the one I have been putting forward.  So I was correct.  Do you think that is fair or not?   Should the exceptions be removed?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you weren't, because it isn't even the same piece of legislation. We were specifically discussing Gender Recognition Certificates, which you said you were fine with, despite quite clearly having a problem with the ruling in the Forstater case, where they played a pivotal part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

What does that mean? If it means letting men be women then women should be allowed to disagree. But they aren’t.  They are deplatformed, bullied and ostracised. By men usually. 
 

Here’s the kicker. Are trans women women?  

Of course it doesn’t mean "letting men be women".  Trans women are NOT men. They're women.

 

You keep banging on about people's right to disagree about something fundamental to other people's identity.  It's a dangerous, dehumanising line of argument.  Try saying "Some people think Jews should be allowed to own property, but I disagree" and see how reasonable that sounds.

 

Like I say, it's about letting people be themselves. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Of course it doesn’t mean "letting men be women".  Trans women are NOT men. They're women.

 

This is the crazy bit.  By what measure are they women?  Being a women is now just a feeling.  Can’t you see why for some women that’s just plain wrong?  Thinking it’s wrong doesn’t make them bigots.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

This is the crazy bit.  By what measure are they women?  Being a women is now just a feeling.  Can’t you see why for some women that’s just plain wrong?  Thinking it’s wrong doesn’t make them bigots.  

Thinking that people need to fit into the boxes you put them in is pretty much what being a bigot is all about. 

 

Spreading mendacious disinformation  like "being a woman is now just a feeling" is pretty much the kind of thing bigots do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Thinking that people need to fit into the boxes you put them in is pretty much what being a bigot is all about. 

 

Spreading mendacious disinformation  like "being a woman is now just a feeling" is pretty much the kind of thing bigots do.

What complete and utter rubbish.  Sex categories aren’t fucking boxes!   Biology can’t just be ignored based on whim.  
 

A person is a bigot because they don’t believe in magic transformations? It’s absolutely crazy. 
 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...