Transwomen are not women - X (XY?)

[Rolfe]

Can you tell me what it means when the petition reaches 100k? It looks like it definitely will!!
What happens that could change the bill on hand or the law?
I know it goes up for debate, but who is allowed to participate in that? Can opposing MP's bring in their own experts, or women inmates, or victims? Are people called to testify before parliament (by both sides) like here in the US?

I have no clue how that works in Scotland. or is this for changes to all of the UK?
Apologies for the ignorance.

This is a Westminster petition, because the Equalities Act is a UK wide act. It has special significance for Scottish voters though, because of what the Scottish government is trying to pull with their reform of the Scottish Gender Recognition Act. The conflict is why the Secretary of State has invoked section 35 of the Scotland Act.

In practice these Parliamenary Petitions are just window-dressing, a sop to make it look as if the public are being given some say in the legislative process over and above just having a vote. If a petition reaches its 100K it will only be considered for a parliamentary debate, and if it gets one, it's likely to be about two in the morning with three people present, who will all agree that everything is fine as it is, case closed.

This one, however, is cleverly worded and is on a red-hot topic of public interest, so we'll see.

 

[Darat]

I get that your employer can change the terms of your employment, such that you are now working with male inmates even though you sought jobs specifically to avoid that, and that your only real recourse in that scenario is to find another job.

….snip… But Darat won't deign to examine any of these questions, because well the employer is allowed to change their terms, so why make a fuss?

As if just switching jobs willy-nilly is such an easy thing to do.

Reminds me of the idea, bandied about recently on this forum, that knowingly putting an innocent person on trial isn't a form of punishment.

What change of terms of employment are you talking about?

 

[Ziggurat]

What change of terms of employment are you talking about?

He explicitly stated what terms. How did you miss it?

I get that your employer can change the terms of your employment, such that you are now working with male inmates even though you sought jobs specifically to avoid that, and that your only real recourse in that scenario is to find another job.

It's one thing to not follow links, but if you won't even read the posts you are responding to, then why the hell are you even posting?

 

[Sherkeu]

This is a Westminster petition, because the Equalities Act is a UK wide act. It has special significance for Scottish voters though, because of what the Scottish government is trying to pull with their reform of the Scottish Gender Recognition Act. The conflict is why the Secretary of State has invoked section 35 of the Scotland Act.

In practice these Parliamenary Petitions are just window-dressing, a sop to make it look as if the public are being given some say in the legislative process over and above just having a vote. If a petition reaches its 100K it will only be considered for a parliamentary debate, and if it gets one, it's likely to be about two in the morning with three people present, who will all agree that everything is fine as it is, case closed.

This one, however, is cleverly worded and is on a red-hot topic of public interest, so we'll see.

Thanks!! I could not easily find something succinct on it. I'm gussing there will be some u-turns of though or even just based on election data.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the best defense for women is just allowing it to happen, allowing the initial consequenses, with a method of oversight measuring the outcome. Complaining about every misstep, assault, and crime to women that results.
That sounds like lambs to the slaughter but it is the only way not to let it fester to the harm of larger numbers or populations - or exporting to other places so it goes on again and again.
The only way to say 'this is not safe' is for them to SEE that is is not safe. Sad. But sometimes insanity needs to be seen to be believed.

Where common sense fails, reality bites.

 

[LondonJohn]

What war of semantics - I thought you were the one for wanting to use the "correct" definitions?



That's nice - nothing at all to do with me or anything I have ever posted in this thread.



Will this post ever be anything to do with anything I have posted - ever?



That's nice - but of course nothing at all to do with anything I have ever posted in this thread - so why address it to me?

Any chance you could now address something that I have actually posted?

See how they just can't help themselves proselytising according to the anti-transgender script? This includes a refusal even to refer to transwomen (or transmen) - instead deliberately employing the offensive and trans-denying term "trans-identifying male" (or "trans-identifying female") And they've invented this term "peaking" to help justify their bigotry.

It's illuminating that Sturgeon has today said that many people are using the "protect women and children" angle as a mask to cover their blanket bigoted denial of transgender identity. Because that's what's been happening within this toxic little thread for a long while now. Fortunately, the mask slips every now and again and we get nasty glimpses of their transphobia when they talk about "men LARPing as women" and other such sentiments.

As you've pointed out (and as many others have pointed out), the current situation regarding this convicted rapist has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not this person is regarded as a man or a woman. It has always been the case, in prisons throughout the UK, that if a transwoman wishes to be placed into the women's estate, she will be carefully risk-assessed and only placed into a women's prison if it's judged that there is no significant perceived risk to either the transwoman or the other women in the prison. In this instance, the prison service appears to have (correctly) determined that the risk threshold had been passed, and that therefore this transwoman could not be placed within the women's estate at this time. But that categorically does not mean that this transwoman is not considered to be a woman.

Anyhow.... welcome to the nasty little echo chamber that this thread has become. And your experience perhaps informs you as to why I only dip my toe into the sewer very occasionally, and why I pretty much refuse to debate with bigots who cloak their fundamental denial of transgender identity.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

< ... >

The poor girls are only now describing their trauma, framing it as "if only we'd known that 'Annie' was on bail facing charges of rape!" But they shouldn't have been subjected to this in the first place, and they shouldn't have been conditioned to believe that they should accept it and accept Graham "for who he wanted to be".

< ... >

Most likely their experiences at the time with this prick were one thing, they've since had (literally) the stuff of nightmares added to that on finding out that he was a serial rapist.

 

[Sherkeu]

Anyhow.... welcome to the nasty little echo chamber that this thread has become. And your experience perhaps informs you as to why I only dip my toe into the sewer very occasionally, and why I pretty much refuse to debate with bigots who cloak their fundamental denial of transgender identity.

The reason this thread has become much more balanced and now siding with natal women's concerns is because of REALITY of the changes.

It's the same reason the Knox trial thread turned 'innocent'...and the "lab leak" thread turned 'probable'.
Because when REAL evidence gets put forth, and there is some recognized authority that changes their stance, people bail the thread instead of admitting when they are wrong.
Some people just need an 'authority' to tell them if something is true or not. Or a law...or statute, or protocol....or if males are actually not females and that the difference actually DOES matter.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

See how they just can't help themselves proselytising according to the anti-transgender script? This includes a refusal even to refer to transwomen (or transmen) - instead deliberately employing the offensive and trans-denying term "trans-identifying male" (or "trans-identifying female") And they've invented this term "peaking" to help justify their bigotry.

It's illuminating that Sturgeon has today said that many people are using the "protect women and children" angle as a mask to cover their blanket bigoted denial of transgender identity. Because that's what's been happening within this toxic little thread for a long while now. Fortunately, the mask slips every now and again and we get nasty glimpses of their transphobia when they talk about "men LARPing as women" and other such sentiments.

As you've pointed out (and as many others have pointed out), the current situation regarding this convicted rapist has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not this person is regarded as a man or a woman. It has always been the case, in prisons throughout the UK, that if a transwoman wishes to be placed into the women's estate, she will be carefully risk-assessed and only placed into a women's prison if it's judged that there is no significant perceived risk to either the transwoman or the other women in the prison. In this instance, the prison service appears to have (correctly) determined that the risk threshold had been passed, and that therefore this transwoman could not be placed within the women's estate at this time. But that categorically does not mean that this transwoman is not considered to be a woman.

Anyhow.... welcome to the nasty little echo chamber that this thread has become. And your experience perhaps informs you as to why I only dip my toe into the sewer very occasionally, and why I pretty much refuse to debate with bigots who cloak their fundamental denial of transgender identity.

I'm sure you didn't intend any inference to be made, but the smaller font when referencing ("trans-identifying female") ... ETA >> well actually I was being disingenuous - I get the inference intended to be made, but a different one could be.

BTW, is LondonJohn going to be a "deadname" soon?

 

[Aber]

And your experience perhaps informs you as to why I only dip my toe into the sewer very occasionally, and why I pretty much refuse to debate with bigots who cloak their fundamental denial of transgender identity.

More than half your posts in the last 3 weeks have been in this thread.

 

[Rolfe]

Most likely their experiences at the time with this prick were one thing, they've since had (literally) the stuff of nightmares added to that on finding out that he was a serial rapist.

Yes indeed. The experiences at the time seem bad enough, with one girl absenting herself from the course because of his behaviour. He had the teachers in tears! The thing is, the girls seem to have believed this was acceptable because they "supported Annie in (her) journey" and all that claptrap. They've been brainwashed to "be kind" to the Sacred Trans, to put their own comfort at nothing, and to see their own discomfort as illegitimate and transphobic.

And if it hadn't turned out that he was a serial rapist, that would have been that. They would have had to suck all that up because TWAW, and they would have gone on accepting it and feeling bad about feeling bad.

No doubt the revelation that he is a serial rapist is making them feel even worse. It's difficult to see how it wouldn't. But the bottom line is that they should never have been subjected to a man pretending to be a woman in their class in the first place, not if his crimes had never been discovered at all, not if he hadn't actually committed any crimes, and indeed not even if he had behaved a lot better than he evidently did.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is like being told not believing in God is the exact same thing, perfect 1:1 parallel, no distinction between the two, same as being religiously intolerant.

"I don't agree with you, but I still respect you and I'm still listening and working with you" HAS TO BE IN THE DISCUSSION SOMEWHERE OR WHAT'S THE ******* POINT?

 

[Darat]

I don't know whether that beautician course was open to men or not. There's nothing in any of the accounts about any other males being present. A course that expects young women to strip "almost naked" for a practical session on spray tanning seems to me to be more likely to be limited to women only. Here is the full article.
…snip….

We have something called the equality act that would make a beautician course being open to only women illegal….

From what I’ve heard this afternoon on the radio it is common in these courses for students to be asked to volunteer to have various procedures tried on themselves, they aren’t forced to volunteer and they would never be asked to strip, a spray tan would be applied to a volunteer wearing a bikini.

As I said since the course is open to women and men it wouldn’t matter what gender someone identified as, so this is not a trans issue it is a much wider safeguarding issue. How do we deal with someone who hasn’t been convicted but is awaiting trial so is presumed to be innocent and the court has determined they can be released until the trial? Do we decide that a man awaiting to go on trial for rape can’t associate with women at all? Have to be supervised if in a place where they’ll be in contact with women?

 

[Darat]

He explicitly stated what terms. How did you miss it?



It's one thing to not follow links, but if you won't even read the posts you are responding to, then why the hell are you even posting?

But that wouldn’t be a change in terms of employment as there are no prison officers on a contract that says they will only deal with female prisoners, that’s not how any of the prison services in the UK work.

 

[Rolfe]

We have something called the Equality Act that allows single-sex provisions where these are proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim.

 

[Darat]

Thanks!! I could not easily find something succinct on it. I'm gussing there will be some u-turns of though or even just based on election data.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the best defense for women is just allowing it to happen, allowing the initial consequenses, with a method of oversight measuring the outcome. Complaining about every misstep, assault, and crime to women that results.
That sounds like lambs to the slaughter but it is the only way not to let it fester to the harm of larger numbers or populations - or exporting to other places so it goes on again and again.
The only way to say 'this is not safe' is for them to SEE that is is not safe. Sad. But sometimes insanity needs to be seen to be believed.

Where common sense fails, reality bites.

Thankfully in the UK we aren’t faced with such a dire choice. In the UK (and just been again reinforced via the response to the petition) sex segregated facilities and services are entirely legal and appropriate to keep women safe regardless of whether someone has a GRC that has changed their official gender or not.

 

[Darat]

We have something called the Equality Act that allows single-sex provisions where these are proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim.

Yep. As it should be.

 

[theprestige]

Thanks!! I could not easily find something succinct on it. I'm gussing there will be some u-turns of though or even just based on election data.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the best defense for women is just allowing it to happen, allowing the initial consequenses, with a method of oversight measuring the outcome. Complaining about every misstep, assault, and crime to women that results.
That sounds like lambs to the slaughter but it is the only way not to let it fester to the harm of larger numbers or populations - or exporting to other places so it goes on again and again.
The only way to say 'this is not safe' is for them to SEE that is is not safe. Sad. But sometimes insanity needs to be seen to be believed.

Where common sense fails, reality bites.

An accelerationist strategy requires a steady hand and an iron gut.

 

[Ziggurat]

But that wouldn’t be a change in terms of employment as there are no prison officers on a contract that says they will only deal with female prisoners, that’s not how any of the prison services in the UK work.

Is Bob-level semantic nit picking all you can contribute? Yes, apparently it is.

"Terms of employment", when used colloquially, can mean more than just what's in a contract. It means what you're required to do, even if it's not made explicit within the contract. So if you work in a women-only prison and there are only women prisoners there, then your terms of employment (in the colloquial sense that everyone except you understands) include working with only women prisoners, whether or not that's contractually specified.

So stop with the deliberate obtuseness. It's growing tiresome.

 

[Ziggurat]

Thankfully in the UK we aren’t faced with such a dire choice. In the UK (and just been again reinforced via the response to the petition) sex segregated facilities and services are entirely legal and appropriate to keep women safe regardless of whether someone has a GRC that has changed their official gender or not.

And yet, male sex offenders keep ending up in women's prisons. Something isn't working. And you're in denial.

 

[Paul2]

This is like being told not believing in God is the exact same thing, perfect 1:1 parallel, no distinction between the two, same as being religiously intolerant.

"I don't agree with you, but I still respect you and I'm still listening and working with you" HAS TO BE IN THE DISCUSSION SOMEWHERE OR WHAT'S THE ******* POINT?

The only point left is the raw exercise of power.