[News] A woman is a woman.

[jcdenton08]

Has anyone properly addressed why trans activists decided to deface statues?

 

[GT49er]

Has anyone properly addressed why trans activists decided to deface statues?

Wrong time of the month?

 

[jcdenton08]

Wrong time of the month?

 

[PascalGroß Tips]

Unfortunately the 'toilets' issue becomes relevant here.

That said....I assume to have a gender recognition certificate requires full surgical transition.
If so I find it hard to understand how a militant feminist can object to sharing space with a trans woman of recognized gender.
And likewise I understand how the new illegality of such space sharing is frightening to trans women.

It depends whether or not the person has had a gender dysphoria diagnosis.

You can apply if you meet all of the following requirements:

• you’re aged 18 or over
• you’ve been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK
• you’ve been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years
• you intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life

You can apply even if you have not had any gender affirming surgery or treatments, or you do not plan to have any.
If you’ve got a Gender Recognition Certificate or something similar from an approved country or territory, you only need to meet the following requirements:

• you’re aged 18 or over
• you have a document showing your affirmed gender is legally recognised in that country or territory

If you do not have a gender dysphoria diagnosis​

You might still be able to apply, but only if you meet all of the following requirements:

• you currently live in England, Wales or Scotland
• you were in a marriage or a civil partnership on 10 December 2014 and living in England or Wales, or on 15 December 2014 and living in Scotland
• you had been living in your affirmed gender for at least 6 years before those dates, and you have evidence of that
• you have had gender affirmation surgery

 

[Barryseagulls]

A lot of media attention for a subject that in reality only affects a tiny percentage of people. Surely most people have more important things to talk about . JK Rowling seems to talk the most sense.

 

[Talby]

I will apologise for my patronising tone as it was unnecessary. Sorry.

Thank you for noticing my childish joke (I assume I don't need to apologise for it?), I did that after an update ages ago, no one noticed my hilarity so I forgot about it. Childish I know.

It doesn’t bother me but you obviously set high standards for yourself.

I don’t mind your patronising tone as long as there’s also a good, healthy debate.

To that end please can you address the point I raised.

Using the words I’ve used (Laura Ashley / Buffalo Bill) please explain the transphobia shown (based on the Supreme Court ruling based on biological sex).

I’d politely request this as you’ve accused me of a hate crime. Some further reading I’ve done on this matter…

Homophobic, Biphobic and Transphobic Hate Crime - Prosecution Guidance | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

 

[Talby]

Has anyone properly addressed why trans activists decided to deface statues?

“However benevolent men may be in their intentions, they cannot know what women want and what suits the necessities of women's lives as well as women know these things themselves.”

100+ years later….this. ‘Let Us Live’.

Not women, ‘us’.

 

[m20gull]

A lot of media attention for a subject that in reality only affects a tiny percentage of people. Surely most people have more important things to talk about . JK Rowling seems to talk the most sense.

That's one perception. The opposing view is that this legislation affects single-sex spaces and therefore all women are potentially affected.

 

[BadFish]

It doesn’t bother me but you obviously set high standards for yourself.

I don’t mind your patronising tone as long as there’s also a good, health debate.

To that end please can you address the point I raised.

Using the words I’ve used (Laura Ashley / Buffalo Bill) please explain the transphobia shown (based on the Supreme Court ruling based on biological sex).

I’d politely request this as you’ve accused me of a hate crime. Some further reading I’ve done on this matter…

Homophobic, Biphobic and Transphobic Hate Crime - Prosecution Guidance | The Crown Prosecution Service

www.cps.gov.uk

You seem intent of getting technical about this. So lets be clear, I accused you of poor form.

You chose to portray a particular view of trans people with the words you used to provide your chosen effect. There is no benefit in me going into detail around this if you don't understand why you chose to enter the discussion in the way you did. I see no need to waste my time on this, its not a discussion i wish to enter , nor is it one that will change either of our minds. I suspect you just want the opportunity to defend yourself and further convince yourself you have said nothing wrong.

You may choose to reflect on this, you may choose to step back from your choice. I suspect you will continue to double down on it. Your standards are up to you, not me.

 

[Hugo Rune]

A lot of media attention for a subject that in reality only affects a tiny percentage of people. Surely most people have more important things to talk about . JK Rowling seems to talk the most sense.

You've answered your own question.

"Surely most people have more important things to talk about?.....

JK Rowling seems to talk..."

It's the culture war. The premise of this is, of course, is distracting the population with largely irrelevant issues (which are designed to make a certain type of person very angry) whilst the billionaires, their media and politicians make themselves richer and avoid accountability.

I noticed a woman was stabbed to death in London yesterday. It could well be a crime of misogyny. But why report that when there is gaslighting to do?

 

[Talby]

I accused you of poor form.

You chose to portray a particular view of trans people with the words you used to provide your chosen effect. There is no benefit in me going into detail around this if you don't understand why you chose to enter the discussion in the way you did. I see no need to waste my time on this, its not a discussion i wish to enter , nor is it one that will change either of our minds. I suspect you just want the opportunity to defend yourself and further convince yourself you have said nothing wrong.

You may choose to reflect on this, you may choose to step back from your choice. I suspect you will continue to double down on it. Your standards are up to you, not me.

Oh yeah, @Hugo Rune accused me of transphobia and then disappeared.

You’ve been less committal but still clearly alluded.

Your response isn’t an answer. Yes my analogy was crass but let’s face it - Buffalo Bill had a penis. He tucked it up in his desire to purport to be a woman. He took the skin of women to change his looks and yet underneath he was biologically still a man.

However, he is not trans.

Trans is about body dysmorphia. A far more sensitive matter about wanting to align your own physical biology with your perceived gender.

But, what the SC have stated is that you’re not a woman until you’re a woman. Perception isn’t enough.

So, yeah…I’m blunt but I don’t think your constant patronising tone is a compelling argument.

 

[BadFish]

So if trans women are not women, and they are not men are people advocating that we introduce another sex?

This seems a little at odds with people's insistence that there are only two sexes and genders.

It also concerns me that this is very decisive and and goes against the notion of equality.

I guess I need to read the legislation to get a handle on this.

 

[BadFish]

Oh yeah, @Hugo Rune accused me of transphobia and then disappeared.

You’ve been less committal but still clearly alluded.

Your response isn’t an answer. Yes my analogy was crass but let’s face it - Buffalo Bill had a penis. He tucked it up in his desire to purport to be a woman. He took the skin of women to change his looks and yet underneath he was biologically still a man.

However, he is not trans.

Trans is about body dysmorphia. A far more sensitive matter about wanting to align your own physical biology with your perceived gender.

But, what the SC have stated is that you’re not a woman until you’re a woman. Perception isn’t enough.

So, yeah…I’m blunt but I don’t think your constant patronising tone is a compelling argument.

I am not arguing with you. My patronising comes from the fact that I don't see the point in arguing with you.

As I say, if you want to understand what was wrong with what you said you can reflect on that and you'll realise it.

You haven't, so you won't and you don't want to.

 

[Talby]

So if trans women are not women, and they are not men are people advocating that we introduce another sex?

This seems a little at odds with people's insistence that there are only two sexes and genders.

It also concerns me that this is very decisive and and goes against the notion of equality.

I guess I need to read the legislation to get a handle on this.

The SC court have already clarified this. You’re going down a wormhole.

Everyone has human rights & equality.

I simply cannot wake up tomorrow and tell my employer they’ve treated me unequally as I now identify as a woman (whilst biologically being a man).

 

[Talby]

I am not arguing with you. My patronising comes from the fact that I don't see the point in arguing with you.

As I say, if you want to understand what was wrong with what you said you can reflect on that and you'll realise it.

You haven't, so you won't and you don't want to.

So, nothing in my latest response you you inspires any debate from you?

I honestly think you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

 

[jcdenton08]

I guess I need to read the legislation to get a handle on this.

Yes, I suggest you do that. Simply because the previous sentences would’ve been unnecessary if you had.

Trans people are still protected by anti-discrimination laws.

When it comes to ongoing issues such as (but not exclusively limited to) a lack of clarification in law regarding trans athletes eligibility, governing bodies now have law to defer to when making policy on inclusion.

Until there is a test case we don’t have a precedent in case law, but on paper it allows for a national universal rulebook on inclusion, with fewer grey areas.

But this law is not a repealing of trans rights, despite how protestors are spinning it. Trans people still have the same statutory protection from discrimination in the same way POC’s do.

 

[BadFish]

Yes, I suggest you do that. Simply because the previous sentences would’ve been unnecessary if you had.

Trans people are still protected by anti-discrimination laws.

When it comes to ongoing issues such as (but not exclusively) a lack of clarification in law regarding trans athletes eligibility, governing bodies now have law to defer to when making policy on inclusion.

Until there is a test case we don’t have a precedent in case law, but on paper it allows for a national universal rulebook on inclusion, with fewer grey areas.

I get that they are still protected by law my question is what sex are they?

Let's assume that a male has transitioned to female and has a gender recognition certificate, according to this legislation they are not a woman as only biological women fit into this category. So what sex does this legislation see them as?

 

[Hugo Rune]

Explain please.

Ok. Let's break this down.

Discrimination is based on hostility.

No. That is incorrect. It's normally based on ignorance as well which is kind of ironic, because you seem to be ignorant about that.

A crass description of someone’s appearance doesn’t mean I won’t treat peopls equally.

This is a false narrative because my accusation that your language is transphobic does not contain an accusation that you'll treat people unequally. That's irrelevant to my point.

It just means I don’t think (based on the Supreme Court ruling) they’re biologically women and, as such, are men (who have rights as trans) telling women what to do, how to feel & making way for them.

This is where the subtlety of the issue comes in to play. Essentially, decent people want to be nice to other people, especially persecuted minorities. Trans-women are biologically men. That is a fact and a truth. But referring to them as men (when many don't even have a penis) can be seen a spiteful and punching down to people who may be very vulnerable. Why not just call them trans-women. That is their protected characteristic, not being biologically male.

As for men telling women what to do. I'd suspect those getting gaslit and enraged about this issue are 90% ignorant men.

Are you going to suppress freedom of speech because it upsets you?

It's hate speech. Obviously.

You have likened a trans-woman to a male serial killer in a dress. You are linking both a cisgender man and a murderer (albeit a fictional one) to trans-women. It's the equivalent of linking banking with Judaism or terrorism with Islam because your very clear implication is 'all trans-women' are like this. It's a transphobic statement whatever your opinion but I actually think it's through ignorance now rather than any spite (reading your other comments) so apologies for the nasty little man comment.

In terms of suppressing your 'free speech', your premise is nonsensical, I don't have the power to suppress your speech. Even if I did, I'd want you to be educated rather than suppressed. Free speech is not absolute, you can be prosecuted for hate speech.

 

[Talby]

Yes, I suggest you do that. Simply because the previous sentences would’ve been unnecessary if you had.

Trans people are still protected by anti-discrimination laws.

When it comes to ongoing issues such as (but not exclusively limited to) a lack of clarification in law regarding trans athletes eligibility, governing bodies now have law to defer to when making policy on inclusion.

Until there is a test case we don’t have a precedent in case law, but on paper it allows for a national universal rulebook on inclusion, with fewer grey areas.

But this law is not a repealing of trans rights, despite how protestors are spinning it. Trans people still have the same statutory protection from discrimination in the same way POC’s do.

Great summary. Trans Rights are protected.

It’s a gender identity issue.

 

[beorhthelm]

I get that they are still protected by law my question is what sex are they?

Let's assume that a male has transitioned to female and has a gender recognition certificate, according to this legislation they are not a woman as only biological women fit into this category. So what sex does this legislation see them as?

easy, male. you cant actually change sex, only gender.