[News] A woman is a woman.

[BadFish]

Hugely complicated.

What has muddied the water (in my view) is very much a modern day phenomena of believing personal rights are absolute even they infringe on the rights of others.

Can I apologise for using a glib analogy. ?

I hate motorists in London but I equally hate cyclists too. Both infringe (daily) on my rights as a pedestrian. But you know what ? I'm not going to parliament square about it.

However, we now have this thing known as the "floating bus stop" in London. You may have them in Brighton.

It's where you have to cross a cycle lane to get to the bus stop from the pavement. In fact near me there is now a mini pedestrian crossing to cross the cycle lane.

We all know that cyclists ignore anything that tells them to stop and these bus stops have become incredibly dangerous for the blind and partially sighted.

It would appear that cyclists > the blind.

Ok, bad parallel over. But perceived rights are not absolute when they infringe on the hard fought rights of others.

You see, I am not sure if it is complicated as some people like to make out. This discussion always ends up at toilets, changing rooms and sports. The optimist in me hopes that this is bcause these are the last problems to be solved (although I suspect some groups are already looking for more). These are discussed ad infinitum with no nuance and little understanding. In all honesty, if these are the last pieces of the jigsaw to be solved in the trans dedate then we are doing pretty well and they are really loose ends to tie up. The trouble is that certain agencies are not discussing these things in good faith and continually stoke up the division with misinformation and red herrings (the boxer and that horrendous Buffalo Bill comment are two good examples).

In the last few posts we have seen some halfwit throwing in the trope of 'looking like Buffalo Bill in a Laura Ashley frock isn’t kidding anyone.' This is the kind of nonsense that makes the discussion complex because it muddies the water and make it harder to discuss solutions sensibly.

To use your cyclist analogy: The solution created is not workable and as you point out, is detrimental to another group. It is imperative that we: 1. Find another solution that doesn't impinge on other people's rights. 2. Don't demonise the cyclists that are using the path correctly, or allow those with an anti-cyclist agenda to whip up anti-cyclist hatred due to the poor solution currently offered. 3. Keep the creation of the improved solution out of the political sphere, nothing can be gained by adding this to the ammunition of those engaged in the culture war (Yeah, I know, too late, cyclists are woke).

 

[BadFish]

I have found the last few days informative and perplexing.

I’ve read the full SC 88-page judgement and the three key primary pieces of legislation to which the judgement applies (EA2010, GRC2004, and SDA1975 [and SDA1984, insofar as it relates to the subject under discussion]).

This is an extremely complex topic.

There is compelling evidence that the SC have ignored strong evidence that the drafters of EA2010 intended the definition of ‘women’ to be the opposite of what they have concluded.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...th-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant among many others.

The SC accepted evidence from four bodies - three recognised anti-trans lobbyists and the EHRC (at best neutral). They rejected evidence from two trans lawyers who were involved in the actual drafting of EA2010. Why?

Why am I interested?

My daughter is marrying a trans woman in September. Since the SC ruling, they have put their house on the market and are planning to emigrate to Ireland because they are ‘scared’. That has got my attention.

I’m getting up the learning curve asap - as you’d expect.

While you’d expect the Tories to be bad on this subject, both my daughter and her fiancée are card-carrying members of Starmer’s Labour Party, yet voted LD in the last GE solely because of Labour’s stance on Trans issues.

I have a lot of learning to do.

What I have learned so far scares the shit out of me concerning tolerance and acceptance of society and of the two major political parties.

Eees f*cking complicated.

Only… it isn’t really. Live and let live.

I have read that article and I am interested (this maybe going off on a tangent somewhat) in how something can pass through Westminster intending one thing (that trans people with GRC's have the same legal status as biological people) but end up with a Supreme Court ruling as the opposite?

Thats f***ed.

 

[Curious Orange]

I have read that article and I am interested (this maybe going off on a tangent somewhat) in how something can pass through Westminster intending one thing (that trans people with GRC's have the same legal status as biological people) but end up with a Supreme Court ruling as the opposite?

Thats f***ed.

Why did the civil servant think it meant something different to the politician?

The problem was, I am almost certain, that one of them conflated sex with gender, and the other didn't.

 

[Talby]

This is nasty rhetoric and transphobic. Stop picking on a persecuted minority you nasty little man.

Explain please.

Discrimination is based on hostility. A crass description of someone’s appearance doesn’t mean I won’t treat peopls equally. 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.

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

 

[BadFish]

Explain please.

Discrimination is based on hostility. A crass description of someone’s appearance doesn’t mean I won’t treat peopls equally. 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.

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

Poor form to start with and poor form to double down on it too.

I would suggest that if you need this explained to you, you probably don't have the capabilities to understand what's wrong with it.

I suggest you read more widely.

 

[Talby]

Poor form to start with and poor form to double down on it too.

I would suggest that if you need this explained to you, you probably don't have the capabilities to understand what's wrong with it.

I suggest you read more widely.

I’ve read more widely, the issue here isn’t my tolerance, understanding of the issue or my treatment of others….it’s your dislike of my unpleasant description (for which I apologise if it offends).

However….Using the words I’ve used please explain the transphobia shown (based on the Supreme Court ruling based on biological sex).

 

[DJ NOBO]

Yep, I did notice the post about you possibly looking at Rowling's tweets in a different light, so maybe the evidence has permeated to an extent. As someone else has suggested also make sure you are noticing what she is retweeting (although often she does this 'accidentally' so it may depend on how much you believe her. Although your second paragraph in this post suggests that it hasn't very much.

The point I was making was about your continuation of the idea that people are changing their sex. The science that contradicts this idea was set out in the first few pages of this thread. Equally, someone as involved in this discussion as Rowling should also better understand this, especially with the size of her platform and influence.

Well I found myself defending everything jk rowling has ever done. Not the initial intention, Waste of time, and I don’t even like her books! But fair enough, I did open that door.

Back to the main points.

Where I agree with her, and where I think we disagree, is the fundamentals.

The main one being that trans women are women, and by extension should have women’s rights.

For me, absolutely not to both.

 

[Goldstone1976]

As you are learning are you able to share the stuff you are reading on here, if not in a PM to me?

I am very interested in this stuff and, like you, am keen to know more.

I am sorry to hear about your daughter's decision too, it is a shame that they feel the need to move because of this. I always feel that it is people who are actually dealing with this stuff that are forgotten in all our discussions of bathrooms and boxers. My understanding from people who are directly affected by this stuff is that they would just like the opportunity to get on with their lives.

For me, I found that I had to read the primary legislation and the full SC as foundational source material. Without that, I was unable to put comments by campaigners, politicians, civil servants et al into context.

That said, here are a couple of starting points for wondering whether the SC accurately captured what Parliament intended when drafting the legislation (which is what they - the SC - say is their primary goal)…

“Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman was concerned about people who have gender recognition certificates. A transsexual person with a certificate is going to be treated, as they must be for all purposes, as being of the acquired gender. That is provided for by section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.” The Solicitor-General in a debate on legislating EA2010. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmpublic/equality/090623/pm/90623s07.htm

GRA explanatory notes. “Subsection (1) states the fundamental proposition that once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes. She would, for example, be entitled to protection as a woman under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975”

Gender Recognition Act 2004 - Explanatory Notes

www.legislation.gov.uk

(My emboldening)

The SC specifically refers to this note:

They dismiss the GRA note because they don’t think there was any detailed analysis at the time.

My response? I think the SC’s argument is flawed for two reasons: a) the lack of evidence of detailed analysis in the note is not proof that detailed analysis was not performed, and, more importantly, b) is entirely irrelevant anyway. The drafters put only one example in the note on this topic. This was the example they chose. That, to me, is pretty compelling evidence that they intended the legislation to effect the example.

Finally, you could do worse than using this article’s rigorous citation links as a jumping off point for your own research. The article is of course written by a pro trans journalist, but the links are to recognised sources.

A UK Supreme Court ruling is about to appear and the transgender community is terrified

At 9.45am on Wednesday 16 April, the UK Supreme Court will hand down its judgments in the For Women Scotland case. It could change everything for the endlessly-attacked UK trans community.Introduction That a minority group is fearful that the UK Supreme Court will remove its basic human rights...

www.translegalproject.org

 

[n1 gull]

I suggest you read more widely.

Not patronising at all

 

[Westdene Seagull]

can you imagine if the boot was on the other foot and men were on the receiving end. And any man moaning about it being called maninarchy, because they want it to stop. I am sick of opening the bbc front page and seeing another woman/girl being abused/ murdered.

these incels and Tate lovers say women are the dangerous ones, seriously you can’t make it up.

I don’t think transgender people are an issue, men are the issue, it is not all men, but its always men.

Your post highlights a problem with peoples understanding of domestic abuse. It's NOT always men that are the perpetrators. I'll give you two examples close to me personally :

1. Two close female friends who were married to each other. One walked out claiming her wife regularly hit her. It didn't help that one was a coke addict and the other a raving alcoholic though.

2. A very close family member has been assaulted by his wife numerous times and he has severe MS. You meet his wife and she's all sweetness and light, yet behind closed doors .....

There's more F on M, and F on F abuse than society cares to recognise. We need to stop the assumption that domestic abuse means M on F.

 

[Talby]

Not patronising at all

I just find it immensely funny that they’ve given themselves the title HUGE MEMBER.

Talk about male posturing.

 

[DJ NOBO]

Not patronising at all

A broader education isn’t the difference on this one

 

[Curious Orange]

GRA explanatory notes. “Subsection (1) states the fundamental proposition that once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes. She would, for example, be entitled to protection as a woman under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975”

Gender Recognition Act 2004 - Explanatory Notes

www.legislation.gov.uk

(My emboldening)

...

I'm not sure why you didn't quote the whole of that note, so here it is as I think it relevant as it makes clear that it allows transexuals with a full Gender Recognition Certificate to get married (a point made somewhat moot by subsequent legislation):

Subsection (1) states the fundamental proposition that once a full gender recognition certificate is issued to an applicant, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender, so that an applicant who was born a male would, in law, become a woman for all purposes. She would, for example, be entitled to protection as a woman under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975; and she would be considered to be female for the purposes of section 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, and so able to contract a valid marriage with a man.

Bearing a Gender Recognition Certificate is the important part. I understand about 9,000 people in the UK have one of those.

It should also be noted that the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) was repealed by the enactment of the Equality Act (2010).

 

[BadFish]

Well I found myself defending everything jk rowling has ever done. Not the initial intention, Waste of time, and I don’t even like her books! But fair enough, I did open that door.

Back to the main points.

Where I agree with her, and where I think we disagree, is the fundamentals.

The main one being that trans women are women, and by extension should have women’s rights.

For me, absolutely not to both.

I am sure we can agree that trans women should have human rights. I must admit, I am not sure which of these wouldn't overlap with women's rights.

 

[HalfaSeatOn]

My motto on this is not to judge a book by its cover.

 

[BadFish]

I just find it immensely funny that they’ve given themselves the title HUGE MEMBER.

Talk about male posturing.

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.

 

[BadFish]

My motto on this is not to judge a book by its cover.

Don't get me started on this. If we are not supposed to judge books by their covers, what on earth are they for?

 

[Goldstone1976]

I'm not sure why you didn't quote the whole of that note, so here it is as I think it relevant as it makes clear that it allows transexuals with a full Gender Recognition Certificate to get married (a point made somewhat moot by subsequent legislation):



Bearing a Gender Recognition Certificate is the important part. I understand about 9,000 people in the UK have one of those.

It should also be noted that the Sex Discrimination Act (1975) was repealed by the enactment of the Equality Act (2010).

No nefarious reason to not quote the whole of the passage. The semicolon at the end of the passage I quoted indicated the end of the point I referred to.

Yep, the SDA1975 was repealed. It was replaced by EA2010, which consolidated whole chunks of SDA1975 into it.

I’m nowhere close to having completed my research into the topic. It’s very much a WIP.

 

[Curious Orange]

Post deleted/edited - I wrote a long one about how language has changed since 1975, how the '75 Act was incorporated into 2010 one and how the context of the impending 2010 election may have affected the level of scrutiny - but the software lost most of that when I hit post.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I am sure we can agree that trans women should have human rights. I must admit, I am not sure which of these wouldn't overlap with women's rights.

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.