• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
This will go to higher courts without doubt.

It’s ridiculous to be fired for stating a fact and this ruling won’t stand.
Click to expand...

It will stand. The reason being she was using the wrong law to claim an unfair dismissal and people will misunderstand what the legal argument was.

She was attempting to argue that her views on trans matters was a coherent philosophical belief and therefore couldn't be used to discriminate against her in matters of employment under the Equality act.

All the court has said is that "your views on trans matters isn't a philosophical belief as defined in the legislation".

For a good example that illustrates what her legal argument was there was a recent case with a vegan employee claiming protection under the Equality act for their "ethical veganism", in that instance the court decided that "ethical veganism" does fall under the provisions of the Equality act.

https://www.capital-law.co.uk/news/...ed,entitled to protection from discrimination.

By all means disagree with the court decision but do so from understanding the legal argument she was making.

She could still seek unfair dismissal on other grounds - and I think she would probably win on different grounds - I would go with the more straightforward right to freedom of expression. I'm quite surprised that she went with the legal approach she did.

Which does make me wonder if she was backed by any "activists" groups that have a wider agenda?
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
Speaking personally: I think that those challenges and concerns feature some that are real and valid, others that are invalid, and others that are potentially feasible but cannot yet be measured. I also believe that yes, female cis women (and yes, male cis men also) will have to make some concessions and give up a small section of their rights, in order to accommodate the greater good. But I say that with the belief that females in particular will need to be assured of maximum reasonable efforts being made to safeguard their physical safety*.

And to go back to my good ol' analogy (though everyone PLEASE note - again - that I am not drawing a direct-mapping comparison between race civil rights and transgender civil rights, but instead I'm ilustrating a principle only...), I can imagine a white man speaking in Alabama in around 1955:




* For example, to use the well-worn chestnut of the gym changing rooms example, I would expect local and national laws to enforce things like the installation of multiple panic buttons in the women's changing rooms, and maybe even also the installation of CCTV in women-only spaces, to be viewable by accredited female members of staff.
Click to expand...

Bigotry couched in terms of safety is a common tactic indeed. I trust we all remember the smears against gays as all being pedophiles who could not be allowed acceptance into our society, and certainly not allowed in roles involving children!
 
LondonJohn said:
Well, I guess we'll see.


(I wonder if you can get fired from your job for tweeting something like "Homosexuals are unnatural and against God".......?)
Click to expand...

In the simplest terms if you were a Christian and that was one of your genuinely held religious beliefs then yes you would be protected under the Equality act.

However in the messy real world that "protection" has to be balanced with all the other rights we all enjoy. For example a homosexual fellow employee has the right to not be discriminated against or harassed or be in fear for being homosexual whilst in work, if the company allows the other employee to make such comments in work that would then be in conflict, especially if the "anti-homosexual" is in any supervisory position over the homosexual.

Boils down to something that a lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand - the real world is a messy place, rights are always a balancing act, there is no perfect solution that satisfies everyone 100% of the time in 100% of all situations.
 
Darat said:
Boils down to something that a lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand - the real world is a messy place, rights are always a balancing act, there is no perfect solution that satisfies everyone 100% of the time in 100% of all situations.
Click to expand...

Sure, and the question becomes, when push comes to shove, do the civil rights of unpopular minorities matter, or do we throw them away in the name of comfort and privilege of the larger majority.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Sure, and the question becomes, when push comes to shove, do the civil rights of unpopular minorities matter, or do we throw them away in the name of comfort and privilege of the larger majority.
Click to expand...
This sounds so clear cut in the abstract, but you aren't addressing specific cases. Is there indeed a novel civil right which allows trans women to displace cis women in women's sport, regardless of transition status? In some states, yes. In others, no. At the federal level, not yet. At the IOC, not really.
 
d4m10n said:
This sounds so clear cut in the abstract, but you aren't addressing specific cases. Is there indeed a novel civil right which allows trans women to displace cis women in women's sport, regardless of transition status? In some states, yes. In others, no. At the federal level, not yet. At the IOC, not really.
Click to expand...

It seems that sports are deemed irrelevant in this thread.
 
lionking said:
It seems that sports are deemed irrelevant in this thread.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess pick anything else. Is there a civil right to enjoy sex-segregated toilets? In some states, yes. In other states, no. Is there a civil right to enjoy gender-segregated toilets? In some states, yes. In other states, no. Will either regime make some people fairly unhappy? Of course. Would it help move things along if we consigned those on the wrong side of history to die on ice floes? Perhaps. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Sure, and the question becomes, when push comes to shove, do the civil rights of unpopular minorities matter, or do we throw them away in the name of comfort and privilege of the larger majority.
Click to expand...

Exactly...support the rights of the minority athletes!!
(as long as she is on your team!)
The-dream-shot-down-Teammates-will-not-bathe-with-her.jpg
 
Earthborn said:
Unless those spaces require people to show their ID cards to enter, self-ID laws have absolutely nothing to do with them. Sex/gender segregated spaces such as public restrooms and changing rooms essentially are run on self-identification already. What the movement for self-identification for changes in civil gender is about is just the M or F on one's birth certificate and ID cards. I find it hard to believe there many people would fake their gender identity just for the privilege of having customs officers ask them "why is there a M/F on your passport when you are clearly a F/M ?"
Click to expand...

Theoretically correct, but not on a practical basis.

The current system is informally self-ID, but with a social understanding of who can be there. If a male goes into the woman's locker room, he can be asked to or required to leave by staff. No one is formally given a protected "right" to be there.

Formalizing self-ID takes this ability away. If the staff approaches someone who they believe is in the wrong space, that person can simply say: I identify as______________ and there is little the staff can do without risking legal action for discrimination. In fact merely approaching a person to investigate puts one at risk.

If you put in a provision about documentation, it doesn't mean that one must show ID to get in. It just means that staff retains their judgment, but that their judgement can be overridden by what is indicated on their driver's license or other ID.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Bigotry couched in terms of safety is a common tactic indeed. I trust we all remember the smears against gays as all being pedophiles who could not be allowed acceptance into our society, and certainly not allowed in roles involving children!
Click to expand...

Another common tactic is to dismiss all concerns counter to your position as bigotry rather than address them.

Unfortunately, the tactic has become rather common. you can replace left wing with "socialist", "right-wing," "fascist," "left-wing," or whatever fits the current discussion.
 
Boudicca90 said:
It is just a few women like you who don't view us as women and delude yourselves into thinking we are taking away your rights and much like Trump supporters, have convinced yourselves that you are a "silent majority" of sorts.
Click to expand...

What evidence supports your assertion that just a few women don't view transwomen as women?

Replacing sex with gender as the marker we use to distinguish between the sexes has the potential to undermine all of women's sex-based rights and protections. E.g.: The eradication of women's right to sex-segregated spaces, services and activities.
 
theprestige said:
Enh. Like The Force Awakens, it starts out with some interesting potential, and then hares off into boring stuff. I'd be interested in more detail on what rights exactly are being pushed for.
Click to expand...


Read this article and let me what you think of it. (goes for the rest of y'all too!)

Why transgender people are ignored by modern medicine

It seems transpersons who are in stealth mode, even in medical appointments, should not be responsible for the inadequate care they get because doctors view them as their preferred identity- because that is what is on the paperwork and they dont tell anyone. They also do not get notified for the appropriate screenings.

Also, since medical care is based on clinical studies segregated by sex, suggesting that someone stop hormone treatment to get appropriate care for their actual sex is deemed unnecessary.
This seems like 'science by emotions' until it doesnt work, and then blame the medical providers who dont have all the facts and NOT blame the patient who does not disclose their true anatomy.

The solution, of course, is to have medical records separate from all others so that care is appropriate for the actual body you have. But then it gives an identifier.

But he’s registered as a man on his medical records, and this meant his doctors used the male eGFR level. He wasn’t put on the list until he reached it – a decision that ultimately delayed the surgery by over a year, and very nearly cost him his life.
“It was really cute and awesome that I was treated as male, but in being this way, they didn’t necessarily take into account the body,” says Whitley, who points out that, though he has been taking testosterone for around 15 years, it’s a relatively small dose. “I was born female and I identify as male – they should have probably have set my limit as somewhere in the middle.”
...
The first incident occurred when Whitley went for an ultrasound scan to investigate his kidney failure, and the technicians who were assessing him abruptly walked out. “All of a sudden, everyone in the room set their stuff down and just left,” he says. “I was like, ‘what's happening?’ No one said anything.” He was left alone for 20 minutes – and then told that he could go, and that they would call him.

Later, he listened in amazement as a doctor gravely informed him that he had a uterus – a fact that Whitley was, naturally, already aware of. “They said, ‘I think we understand the problem – you have a uterus and so that may be contributing to your kidney failure.’ I was like, ‘what are you talking about?’”

Eventually Whitley’s doctor convinced him to stop his testosterone therapy, though Whitley feels there was no valid medical justification for this and describes it as a distressing and unnecessary step.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
Consider a young woman ("young woman" including teenagers) in a locker room. She is changing clothes, so will be in some state of undress which would not be normal in public, which is why she's in a locker room. She is white. She observes the person next to her, and complains to management. She does not want to share a locker room with that person.



Now consider three possibilities.



1) The person is a black cis-woman.

2) The person is a trans-woman (regardless of race).

3) The person is a cis-man (regardless of race).



Would you be sympathetic to her complaint, and believe that the person she objects to ought not be allowed to share a locker room with her?
Click to expand...
Is there any way for the young woman in question to tell situations #2 & #3 apart without striking up a conversation?
 
d4m10n said:
Is there any way for the young woman in question to tell situations #2 & #3 apart without striking up a conversation?
Click to expand...



Presumably this exercise is predicated upon which of the three the young woman perceives as either a) the most offensive to her, or b) potentially the most dangerous to her....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom