Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Darat]

It was tied into the trans discussion by the keyword "female".

Thanks but Rolfe has already explained that - you must have missed her post.

 

[Meadmaker]

One of the difficulties is that when these policies are being advocated, they are sold as "do you support trans-women having access to female changing rooms",

I don't think you would ever see that question from an advocate. I think it would be, "Do you support the right of all individuals to have access to facilities appropriate for their gender identity?"

 

[Darat]

What individual right entitles a male to access female-only spaces?

You seem to have missed that this part of the discussion arose from the new advice in the UK, which made clear that there can be such spaces that a male can't use and offering such spaces is lawful so in those circumstances they don't have a right.

 

[theprestige]

FTFY.

I can't see any reason why such an app wouldn't be allowed given the current legislation. As to the "should" part, I'm all for people dating whoever they want so I'm not going to say they shouldn't, and from my perspective it would seem a good idea. But I'm not a lesbian looking to create a dating app so of course I am not going to prescribe what such a person should or should not do.

You can certainly prescribe what you believe public policy should or should not allow or require a person to do.

 

[theprestige]

From my understanding (and what appears to be happening) such an app wouldn't run foul of the Equality Act. Do you think it would?

Do you believe it would be good public policy to amend the Equality Act to prohibit such acts?

 

[Darat]

I see you're going for the fringe reset, then.

Can't help it if Ziggurat wants to do a reset rather than have a discussion, that's up to him.

 

[theprestige]

Thanks but Rolfe has already explained that - you must have missed her post.

Didn't miss it. Just providing a more succinct summary of the current state of play in this discussion. Five years and seven continuations in, I think it's important to bring newcomers up to speed as efficiently as possible.

 

[Darat]

I don't think you would ever see that question from an advocate. I think it would be, "Do you support the right of all individuals to have access to facilities appropriate for their gender identity?"

And shutit's other example was describing behaviour that can be criminal whether it happened in an all-male or all-female changing room.

 

[theprestige]

You seem to have missed that this part of the discussion arose from the new advice in the UK, which made clear that there can be such spaces that a male can't use and offering such spaces is lawful so in those circumstances they don't have a right.

A dodge.

Far from missing this part of the discussion, I have noted that your contribution to it has been a series of dodges.

I'm not asking about what public policy currently says in that jurisdiction.

I'm asking what you believe public policy should be - what rights you think individuals should have.

 

[Darat]

You can certainly prescribe what you believe public policy should or should not allow or require a person to do.

Nope that wouldn't be prescribing^dict. Words have meanings you know.....

And in the post you quoted I gave you my opinion...

 

[Darat]

Do you believe it would be good public policy to amend the Equality Act to prohibit such acts?

No.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can't help it if Ziggurat wants to do a reset rather than have a discussion, that's up to him.

Either you don't actually know what a fringe reset is, or you're being dishonest. This here is a fringe reset:

FTFY.

That's not a fix. That's you trying to impose language changes on other people. The STANDARD definition of female is biological. It's only a minority fringe that wants to change that. People don't have to specify that the standard definition is only their personal definition, because it's not. It's the standard definition, and widely shared by most people. By insisting that fringe definitions have the same status as the standard definition rather than actually answering the question the first time, you were avoiding the actual discussion, not me.

All of this has been covered ad nauseum in the past. Trying to dig it up again is a fringe reset.

I can't see any reason why such an app wouldn't be allowed given the current legislation. As to the "should" part, I'm all for people dating whoever they want

I didn't ask about who to date, I asked if the app developers (who may not be dating anyone) get to exclude people from the app.

so I'm not going to say they shouldn't, and from my perspective it would seem a good idea.

That sounds like an answer. If it is, then you should have given it pages ago. But there's been so much equivocation, I don't trust that it actually is.

But I'm not a lesbian looking to create a dating app so of course I am not going to prescribe what such a person should or should not do.

I didn't ask what they should do, I asked what they should be ABLE to do. The distinction matters. And since government is going to decide this one way or the other, whether or not you should have any say in the matter, the fact is you actually do, small though it may be.

 

[Ziggurat]

Words have meanings you know.....

Except when they don't. Like in the case of "female".

 

[Darat]

Didn't miss it. Just providing a more succinct summary of the current state of play in this discussion. Five years and seven continuations in, I think it's important to bring newcomers up to speed as efficiently as possible.

Yeah for some us posting since the first thread of this discussion began it can be frustrating when newcomers don't keep up.

 

[Darat]

Either you don't actually know what a fringe reset is, or you're being dishonest. This here is a fringe reset:

Nope that is not a fringe reset.

That's not a fix. That's you trying to impose language changes on other people.

Nope I'm not the one dictating what words people should use and what definitions those words have - recently in this thread that is someone called "Ziggurat" e.g.

The STANDARD definition of female is biological.

It's only a minority fringe that wants to change that.

I agree.

People don't have to specify that the standard definition is only their personal definition, because it's not.

In general I would agree with you but not in a discussion where it is one of the core issues.

It's the standard definition, and widely shared by most people. By insisting that fringe definitions have the same status as the standard definition rather than actually answering the question the first time, you were avoiding the actual discussion, not me.

Then I would suggest you don't give them the same status - I certainly don't.

All of this has been covered ad nauseum in the past. Trying to dig it up again is a fringe reset.

Nope - you trying to ignore all the discussion about it as if it is not a point under discussion that has not been resolved is the fringe reset.

I didn't ask about who to date, I asked if the app developers (who may not be dating anyone) get to exclude people from the app.

That sounds like an answer. If it is, then you should have given it pages ago. But there's been so much equivocation, I don't trust that it actually is.

I didn't ask what they should do, I asked what they should be ABLE to do. The distinction matters. And since government is going to decide this one way or the other, whether or not you should have any say in the matter, the fact is you actually do, small though it may be.

Answered a few times.

 

[Ziggurat]

In general I would agree with you but not in a discussion where it is one of the core issues.

It is not one of the core issues we were discussing right now.

Then I would suggest you don't give them the same status - I certainly don't.

Yes, you did. You are the only one who did. Nobody else here had any problem with using "female" to refer to biology only, as a term that did not include transwomen. Just you.

Nope - you trying to ignore all the discussion about it as if it is not a point under discussion that has not been resolved is the fringe reset.

It was not under discussion right now, until you tried to make it the topic in order to avoid just directly answering a very simple question.

Answered a few times.

Not clearly, you haven't.

 

[Darat]

It is not one of the core issues we were discussing right now.

It has always been one of the core issues.

Yes, you did. You are the only one who did. Nobody else here had any problem with using "female" to refer to biology only, as a term that did not include transwomen. Just you.

What problem did I have?

It was not under discussion right now, until you tried to make it the topic in order to avoid just directly answering a very simple question.

I've not avoided answering any questions, you may not agree with how I choose to answer but that is not me avoiding questions.

Not clearly, you haven't.

Not true, e.g.

FTFY.

I can't see any reason why such an app wouldn't be allowed given the current legislation. As to the "should" part, I'm all for people dating whoever they want so I'm not going to say they shouldn't, and from my perspective it would seem a good idea. But I'm not a lesbian looking to create a dating app so of course I am not going to prescribe what such a person should or should not do.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not the one dictating what words people should use and what definitions those words have...

No, but the law does, as I showed you. You rejected this because you said that this was only applicable in a legal context, outside that Humpty Dumpty could use whatever meaning he wanted.

But, two things. As I already asked, if the app moderators are using the common definition, which is also the legal one, then does it matter what the aspiring new member means by the word? It's not normal to be able to circumvent the rules of a social media app by adopting different definitions of words from the moderators and expecting your definition to trump theirs. I don't see you allowing that here.

And secondly, the legal meaning is the important one. I was asking whether someone who was not female should be allowed to join an app that was specifically for female people, just on their own say-so. And I was asking this in the context of the law, the Equality Act, and I actually posted the EA's definition for you, and you hand-waved it away because maybe the mab who fancies a bit of lesbian believes that female means something that would include him.

It doesn't matter what he thinks. It matters what the app's moderators think, and when push comes to shove it matters what the EA thinks.

We don't know what the EA says about that. What do you think it should say? By its own definitions.

 

[Meadmaker]

nvm

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's possible that the joke was that Sphensic was parodying "talking over and ignoring" me. Now I've spotted that I think it's quite funny. (I was distracted to start with because her post corrected a small typo I had made - "ignore" for "ignored".)

I think it would have struck me as funnier if Sphensic were male

But at least now I get it, thank you for the explanation!