• 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.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

lionking said:
Another man speaking with certainty about the lived experience of a woman. Bravo.

Yes, your opinions are indeed irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I am currently in correspondence with the theatre for which I have had a season ticket since approximately forever. I asked them, in the event that any difficulties or unpleasantness were to arise due to a man in a dress disregarding the SC ruling, could I rely on the venue acting to uphold women's right to single-sex spaces.

I had a weaselly reply that they were waiting for the Scottish government to publish its guidance on the ruling.

I replied that the judgment itself was admirably clear and unambiguous, and surely needed no further guidance, certainly no more than that issued by the EHRC on the matter, which I quoted. I opined that it was a complete mystery to me how it could possibly be imagined that any guidance issued by the SG - when it finally got around to it - could conceivably suggest a different approach to that mandated by the SC and further clarified by the EHRC.

So, over to them again.

I haven't written to any other venue I frequent, because I haven't encountered a man in a dress in their toilets.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I'm really curious. Just how often do women go into a public restroom and find a trans-person in there? My guess is almost never. And are they really sure of that person's biological sex? And was it an inconvenience? How did they adjust? Did they leave and come back? Did they stay and use another stall?
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on where you are? If you're in a small town, maybe never. On Pacific Avenue in Atlantic City NJ, you're going to run across either a transgender, a transvestite, or a drag queen like one out of three times you use ant public rest room, IME anyway.

My wife and a couple of her friends says you will see them with middling frequency in the wild, again if you are in certain towns, and it tends to be the same few, not a lot of variety. In our actual home town, I've never seen one in 15 years, nor has she.
acbytesla said:
I don't disagree with sex segregated sports. I believe girls sports is a benefit to girls and society as a whole. But I'm totally unconvinced that we need laws to prevent a trans person from using a public restroom that others might see as misgendered.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm still scratching my head a little. I get their point, that it's an easy loophole for a perv to exploit, and some women are going to feel exposed and vulnerable simply with a male in the enclosed space with them. If it's just the two of them alone in an otherwise deserted and out-of-the-way restroom, I can sure see that.
 
zooterkin said:
Here you go:



I'm not sure how different saying you're proposing to undergo a process is from self ID, in practice.
Click to expand...
The Equality Act has always said that since it was written in 2010. Obviously a GRC has never been needed for somebody to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment since the only requirement is proposing to transition in some way. This is necessary to prevent discrimination; for example, an employer firing somebody because they have said they intend to transition.

Self-ID refers to somebody being entitled to be treated as the other sex for all purposes on the basis of self declaration (it may also refer to being able to change legal sex based on self-declaration). It is not the same as having a protected characteristic.
 
Emily's Cat said:
If I tell you "I believe in aliens" is there any way at all for you to tell whether I'm being honest or whether I'm lying?
Click to expand...

You can look to a person's actions to determine if they're lying.

For example, if a TERF claims to be supportive of trans-people or claims to have nothing against them, but then insists on using pejoratives and disrespectful terms to describe them, we can assume they're lying.

By the same token, if someone claims to be a transwoman but is unwilling to do anything to transition and only wants access to women's bathrooms, we can assume that person is lying too.

While not a perfect metric, actions tell a person a lot.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Yep.

Seriously, you're going to have a tantrum because I used the extremely common "bolted on boobs" which in actual usage DOES apply to breast implants on females too... and as a result of your disingenuous flouncing, you're going to ignore the entire rest of my post?
Click to expand...

Pointing out your disrespect does not equal having a tantrum.

Common among what groups? TERFs?
 
Emily's Cat said:
Such as? Can you provide some examples?
Click to expand...

Examples have been provided. For example when I provided the example of wearing clothing designed for a different gender, I was met with denial that gendered clothing exists.
 
Darat said:
No it isn’t, it’s in plain black and white that to fall under the equality act that you do not need a GRC - have you not read the judgement?
Click to expand...

Aber explains...
Aber said:
It's a bit more nuanced than that.

The protected characteristic under the Equality Act is gender reassignment and IIRC that includes intending to undergo gender reassignment. So it covers those who have not yet gone under gender reassignment, which doesn't sit well with Self ID. :unsure:
Click to expand...

Indeed I have read it Darat, are you sure you have read it, and understood it?

The ruling effectively makes the GRC worthless. As it clearly explains, having people with and without GRCs would effectively result in their being two different groups of trans-people, those who had "certificated" sex (a GRC) and those two did not, and the group with a GRC would have more privileges and protections than those who did not. The court unanimously decided this was manifestly unfair.

Transgender Self ID ONLY applies for the purposes of protection against discrimination where it does NOT conflict with the (biological) sex based rights of others. For example, emplyment, housing & education where there are no sex-based rights in play. Where there ARE sex based rights, for example, sports, public bathrooms, changing rooms, women's refuges, hospital wards, women's rape crisis centres, then biolocial sex is factored in, and trans people, just like anyone else, are required to use those spaces and facilites that match their bioliogical sex.
 
acbytesla said:
Jim Crow, Not giving women the right to vote. Americans stole land from native Americans and put them on reservations.
Click to expand...
Nope. None of that discrimination was based on numbers (would have been particularly stupid in regards to women, who outnumber men). All of that was based on a particular group supposedly not deserving the same rights, regardless of numbers.
 
Thermal said:
Get the gubmint together on how we are defining sex segregated spaces and gender ones, and we can talk using the same terminology.
Click to expand...
I'm skeptical as to whether getting government more involved will be generally helpful.

Here in the U.S. the federal government has vacillated between sneaking gender identity into Titles VII & IX (via subtle but powerful redefinitions of sex as a protected status) under Biden to banning transgender people from military service under Trump. I'm embarrassed by the first move—having supported Biden—and disgusted by the second one. In neither case was the legislature in the loop, openly debating the issues to be resolved.

We'd probably be better off if we allowed places like Wi Spa or the YWCA or the WNBA (and perhaps even the DoD) to set their own inclusion policies without having to hire a team of lawyers to fend off anti-discrimination lawsuits.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Just for clarity, are you saying that there are some people with penises that you're attracted to and would consider as a potential sexual partner?
Click to expand...

The older I get the more I'm only attracted to my wife.

But I'm also growing more open minded, so maybe. Are you trying to kink-shame me?
 
Mycroft said:
Yet there are people who can not reproduce.
Click to expand...
A non-functional reproductive system is still a reproductive system.

And once again, this debate has nothing to do with DSD. Transpeople generally don't have DSDs, people with DSDs aren't generally trans, and we aren't discussing accommodations on the basis of having a DSD but on the basis of identifying as trans. So don't try bringing up that ◊◊◊◊ again.
 
smartcooky said:
Aber explains...


Indeed I have read it Darat, are you sure you have read it, and understood it?

The ruling effectively makes the GRC worthless. As it clearly explains, having people with and without GRCs would effectively result in their being two different groups of trans-people, those who had "certificated" sex (a GRC) and those two did not, and the group with a GRC would have more privileges and protections than those who did not. The court unanimously decided this was manifestly unfair.

Transgender Self ID ONLY applies for the purposes of protection against discrimination where it does NOT conflict with the (biological) sex based rights of others. For example, emplyment, housing & education where there are no sex-based rights in play. Where there ARE sex based rights, for example, sports, public bathrooms, changing rooms, women's refuges, hospital wards, women's rape crisis centres, then biolocial sex is factored in, and trans people, just like anyone else, are required to use those spaces and facilites that match their bioliogical sex.
Click to expand...

I'm actually not sure in what way you are all disagreeing here. You seem to be saying the same thing to each other as if it weren't the same thing.
 
Agatha said:
Diminutive means extremely or unusually small. I'm guessing you meant something like disparaging or derogatory.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Agatha said:
This isn't a hate-female forum, but that doesn't seem to have prevented people sharing "yuks" - astonishingly misogynistic views - at women's expense. But you don't call that out.
Click to expand...

When mere disagreement is interpreted as misogynistic, then the claim of misogyny is just to shut-down opposing points of view. Whereas the pejorative terms are objectively pejorative, and disagreement is very possible without using them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom