Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[JihadJane]

Sex segregated toilets have worked fine for a long time, based on trust - i.e an honor system. Now we have have a group of men who are prepared to both lie about their sex in order to validate their "gender" and to bulldoze through women's objections.

 

[Earthborn]

We've been over this before in this discussion.
Transgender rights in the UK

The Equality Act 2010 officially adds "gender reassignment" as a "protected characteristic", stating that:
A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

This law provides protection for transsexual people at work, in education, as a consumer, when using public services, when buying or renting property, or as a member or guest of a private club or association. Protection against discrimination by association with a transsexual person is also included.

The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination against people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the provision of separate and single-sex services but includes an exception that service providers can use in exceptional circumstances. In general, organisations that provide separate or single‑sex services for women and men, or provide different services to women and men, are required to treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.

What FPW is proposing is illegal discrimination.

 

[theprestige]

We've been over this before in this discussion.
Transgender rights in the UK
What FPW is proposing is illegal discrimination.

The thing about public policy is that citizens are not required to debate only in terms of what the law currently is. They can - and probably should - expand the debate to include what they think the law should be.

Rebutting a proposal that requires a change in the law by saying the law currently doesn't allow that is (in my opinion) an abdication of your responsibilities as a citizen in a democracy. At the very least, your rebuttal should include your reasoning for why the current law is better than what's being proposed.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

AIUI in UK law:

sex defined at birth, unless changed by gender recognition certificate

protected characteristics for discrimination claims - sex, sexual orientation

employment law - much wider/looser definitions

per ONS


If you believe differently please provide sources.

I think you need to update your understanding. Start with the 2010 Equality Act. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...imination-because-of-sex/#gender_reassignment

 

[Ziggurat]

In general, organisations that provide separate or single‑sex services for women and men, or provide different services to women and men, are required to treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present.

Does that mean that in the UK, brazilian waxers would have to wax Yanniv's lady balls?

 

[cullennz]

I think you need to update your understanding. Start with the 2010 Equality Act. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...imination-because-of-sex/#gender_reassignment

From your link

"Gender reassignment is where you are changing from one sex to another."

Spot the idiots who don't know the difference between the two.

 

[cullennz]

I think you need to update your understanding. Start with the 2010 Equality Act. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/l...imination-because-of-sex/#gender_reassignment

Actually just reading the rest of that link, in between a few obvious points, it is one of the stupidest things I have read.

Who hires these people?

 

[Rolfe]

At least the Scottish parliament accepted an amendment of the wording of new legislation so that rape victims will be permitted to request examination by a doctor of their preferred sex, rather than their preferred gender. Apparently the Scottish government caved (they were opposing the amendment) when they realised they were facing a rebellion so large the amendment was going to pass anyway.

Before the vote the trans activists were insisting that it didn't make any difference, the two terms were interchangeable (what happened to the squillion-and-one different genders then, and what would happen if a victim demanded an aporagender doctor I wonder?) so it was pointless to lobby for the change. After the vote this was the most appalling thing possible that had happened, it had been done entirely out of hatred for trans people who now feel unsafe in Scotland with some declaring they're going to leave the country as a result.

Allowing raped women access to a female doctor is less important than not bruising the feelings of trans people apparently.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, it is.

If surgery is successful enough to create functional and aesthetically pleasing external female parts on a biological male then things can be fine on the physical front. (And the reverse.)

This assumes you are only talking about sexual attraction and intercourse. If you are interested in reproduction, then you are correct. Things can never be fine on a genetic front. At least not with current technology.

But if you are talking family planning, we are moving out of casual sex/hookups and into the long term relationship area. And even without the transgender issue those criteria are not necessarily the same.

So... I get where you're coming from here... but reality is that none of the created parts are functional. I mean, okay, technically a vaginoplasty does create a "serviceable" hole for a male to ejaculate into... but it isn't self-lubricating, it doesn't have internal musculature, and it has to be "dilated" regularly so that the hole doesn't heal up and close itself. If the transwoman is lucky enough to have had a large enough penis prior to the surgery and a competent surgeon, there may be enough penile skin involved to allow the transwoman to experience some sexual arousal, but they will never have an actual orgasm.

Similarly, a phalloplasty doesn't produce a functional penis. It will not get hard on its own, but needs to be pumped up to attain rigidity. The transman will never ejaculate. Again, with a good surgeon and some luck, they might have enough clitoral nerves incorporated to experience sexual pleasure, and arguably an orgasm. But at the end of the day, it's not at all a functional organ.

In terms of aesthetics... There's going to be some judgement there. My understanding (and I haven't googled for this specifically mind you) is that it's a bit easier to create a false vagina that passes a cursory visual inspection and thus is "pleasing" than to do the same for a false penis. My (admittedly very limited) observations have been that the false penises look nothing at all like a real penis and testicles.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You think all women having to carry around their birth certificate to access changing rooms is less of an indignity than sharing that space with trans women?

I think it's less an indignity than allowing males to gain access to those spaces just because they say they're trans, when they're big bearded lumberjack-looking fellas.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right. Traditionally femme appearing women won't be stopped. Is it acceptable that butch women, or just women who don't meet traditional beauty standards, be stopped at the door and demanded to provide a birth certificate?

The guide is very helpful to point out that no other documentation can suffice, just the birth certificate. Ugly women might get stopped at the door, and if they don't have their proper papers, no entry allowed.

Of course, passing trans women won't be stopped. Just ugly women, non-passing trans women, and butch appearing women will be harassed.

Your argument really ends up being that females should be required to surrender their spaces and their privacy to ANY MALE WHO CLAIMS IT so that we evil ovarians don't hurt the feelz of some potentially genuinely harmless transsexuals?

How is this actually materially different from the tired old sexist assumption that women should subdue their needs in preference of supporting the whims of men?

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's an imperfect medium available. One idea is that there are criteria, but it's not routinely checked. If someone thinks that criteria is not being followed, they can inform management, who can make their own assessment as to whether to inquire discreetly. As I said, it's imperfect. But I haven't heard of a better proposal. And it's essentially what has been in play in the past.

Which seemed to work quite well for females as well as the small number of transsexuals who used our spaces with our acceptance and the fiction of them being women.

It hasn't been a problem until recently, when you get transgender people who flaunt their transgender status and who can't be "oppressed" by the basic expectation of being discrete about their unaltered genitalia, and feel that it needs to be their "right" to invade female spaces in their full masculine glory in order to affirm their internal feelings.

*Sigh* Some days I have less patience for pussy-footing around the idiotically sensitive language. The requirement for falsely compassionate "inclusive" language to protect someone's feelings about reality is wearing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

New bipartisan bill in the U.S.

https://twitter.com/TheTomGeorge/status/1337162110619414529

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/tuls...nder-bill-title-ix_n_5fd2de33c5b66a75841389b5

Go Gabbard!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Not as far as I can see. UK law does not interpret discrimination based on whether or not the person has legally changed their gender on their birth certificate.

A persons status as trans is not impacted by whether or not they have changed their birth certificate.

It's not the first time you seem to have made some shaky claims about UK law.

What the heck? In UK law, sex segregated spaces are just that - sex segregated. They are available to people who have legal status as a given sex. They are not available to people who merely feel like they are the other sex inside of their heads, but who have not attained a legal status change.

A person's LEGAL status as trans is protected if they have a GRC. If they don't... well, then they're a cross-dressing person of their natal sex. They could very well be someone with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, but until they get that certificate, they have no right to legally sex segregated areas.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think this is pretty normal in any argument. I mean it was probably unacceptable to racists to allow black people to share their water coolers.

Ahh yes. Here we go with the evil, horribly oppressive ovarians keeping those males down. Females are the true bigots, and males merely the victims of their fascist rampage!

I suppose if you say it enough times, you can convince yourself that it's true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

At least the Scottish parliament accepted an amendment of the wording of new legislation so that rape victims will be permitted to request examination by a doctor of their preferred sex, rather than their preferred gender. Apparently the Scottish government caved (they were opposing the amendment) when they realised they were facing a rebellion so large the amendment was going to pass anyway.

Before the vote the trans activists were insisting that it didn't make any difference, the two terms were interchangeable (what happened to the squillion-and-one different genders then, and what would happen if a victim demanded an aporagender doctor I wonder?) so it was pointless to lobby for the change. After the vote this was the most appalling thing possible that had happened, it had been done entirely out of hatred for trans people who now feel unsafe in Scotland with some declaring they're going to leave the country as a result.

Allowing raped women access to a female doctor is less important than not bruising the feelings of trans people apparently.

Remind me... wasn't there also a push to get the law changed to say that it would be unlawful for cis-gender people to request a doctor of the same sex (they could only ask for the same gender), but that a transgender person was allowed to request a transgender doctor? It was something just truly bafflingly hypocritical.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

.Before the vote the trans activists were insisting that it didn't make any difference, the two terms were interchangeable (what happened to the squillion-and-one different genders then, and what would happen if a victim demanded an aporagender doctor I wonder?) so it was pointless to lobby for the change. After the vote this was the most appalling thing possible that had happened, it had been done entirely out of hatred for trans people who now feel unsafe in Scotland with some declaring they're going to leave the country as a result.

Allowing raped women access to a female doctor is less important than not bruising the feelings of trans people apparently.

That's translogic ( or should that be trans logic?) for you.

John 11:35.
Or Hebrews 13:8.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Does that mean that in the UK, brazilian waxers would have to wax Yanniv's lady balls?

Yes. Unless that was considered sufficient reason for an exclusion by a court. You would need to take that to court to establish a precedent and I don't think it has been yet.

I don't see any reason why it would be seen as sufficient reason.

ETA: I don't have personal experience of using them but my understanding is that most if not all waxing salons are not single sex anyway. I believe back, sack and crack is the expression?

 

[Rolfe]

There are plenty waxing salons which deal with both sexes who would have been happy to accommodate Yaniv. However he deliberately sought out small sole-trader outfits which were essentially one woman treating other women in their own homes, who only dealt with women, then insisted he'd been subjected to a hate crime when they said they didn't have the supplies, the technique or the facilities to deal with male parts.

He described it as "gender-affirming care" and said he had a right to be treated by women-only providers because feelz.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

There are plenty waxing salons which deal with both sexes who would have been happy to accommodate Yaniv. However he deliberately sought out small sole-trader outfits which were essentially one woman treating other women in their own homes, who only dealt with women, then insisted he'd been subjected to a hate crime when they said they didn't have the supplies, the technique or the facilities to deal with male parts.

He described it as "gender-affirming care" and said he had a right to be treated by women-only providers because feelz.

Because law, you mean?

It's amazing how you dismiss all trans-rights as 'feels' and yet somehow don't dismiss the 'feels' of the women who want to discriminate. I guess bigot feels trump trans feels?

In any case there is I have learned little point in debating the topic. My interventions currently are only to point out the frequent mis-statements of the law that seem to pass for argument in this thread.