Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

If I were one of those women, I wonder if I would be tempted to say, "nah, he can keep the titles". Just have those misogynistic "achievements" hanging around his neck for the rest of his life.
 
Aber said:
"the old approach of allowing individuals to change facility to accord with their trans identity does not seem coherent"
Click to expand...
Not if you are tying to fall under the single-sex exemption, which is what they are talking about here. You are welcome to extrapolate from this to which forms of mixed-sex services will be legally permissible going forward (such as the ladies' pond as actually practiced from 2010 to 2025) but it would help to show your work instead of simply presuming that the conclusions you find most palatable will be implemented nationwide, as some have done here.
Aber said:
I admire your commitment to hair-splitting.
Click to expand...
We were talking about arguments made by lawyers and accepted by judges; hair splitting is something of an occupational hazard in common law systems. If an argument can be made that trans-inclusive spaces are legally permissible under the EA 2010, that argument will be made and the courts will have to decide.
smartcooky said:
I reiterate... read the bloody decision... the WHOLE bloody decision... all 87 pages/268 paragraphs of the decision, and it will answer many of your questions.
Click to expand...
Did any part of it say—or even imply—that mixed-sex spaces in the UK may no longer by separated by characteristics orthogonal to the those explicitly protected by EA 2010, e.g. women's vs. men's swimsuits? We need to bear in mind that there is still significant cultural demand for trans-inclusive spaces on the ground and people in charge of places such as the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond are going to find some way to meet that demand if enough service users ask them to keep at it.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
If I were one of those women, I wonder if I would be tempted to say, "nah, he can keep the titles". Just have those misogynistic "achievements" hanging around his neck for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...
Having the achievements doesn't bother him one bit. If issues like fairness concerned him, he wouldn't have competed against women in the first place. He's bothered that they're being taken away.
 
d4m10n said:
Not if you are tying to fall under the single-sex exemption, which is what they are talking about here. You are welcome to extrapolate from this to which forms of mixed-sex services will be legally permissible going forward (such as the ladies' pond as actually practiced from 2010 to 2025) but it would help to show your work instead of simply presuming that the conclusions you find most palatable will be implemented nationwide, as some have done here.

We were talking about arguments made by lawyers and accepted by judges; hair splitting is something of an occupational hazard in common law systems. If an argument can be made that trans-inclusive spaces are legally permissible under the EA 2010, that argument will be made and the courts will have to decide.

Did any part of it say—or even imply—that mixed-sex spaces in the UK may no longer by separated by characteristics orthogonal to the those explicitly protected by EA 2010, e.g. women's vs. men's swimsuits? We need to bear in mind that there is still significant cultural demand for trans-inclusive spaces on the ground and people in charge of places such as the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond are going to find some way to meet that demand if enough service users ask them to keep at it.
Click to expand...
No matter how you pretzelize your arguments, and try to play a real-life game of Twister with the law, none of it will get you past this part of the Supreme Court decision...

"The Court concludes that the provisions of the EA 2010 discussed above are provisions to which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate [264]."​

No amount of dodging, weaving, spinning or writing of word-salad can get around this clear, unequivocal statement. Its now black letter, settled law. This part of the ruling is an impenetrable brick wall... any attempt to have a single sex space that includes some but not other members of the other sex is going come hard up against this wall. There's no getting through it, and there's no getting around it. In the UK at least, transgender identified males gaining legal access to women's spaces is over and done with.

Some are still ignoring the law, and they will be brought into line soon enough. As @Rolfe has correctly pointed out, the group of people around FWS are very well funded and loaded for bear. They have already started filing applications for judicial reviews against some of the heel-draggers...

ETA: I'll tell you what... you prepare the wording for the terms of use for the pool that you think will get you around the law, I will show how it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
If I were one of those women, I wonder if I would be tempted to say, "nah, he can keep the titles". Just have those misogynistic "achievements" hanging around his neck for the rest of his life.
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1981114484321374290

"Hannah" used to be Hugo. It's a known fact that he's a bloke. Suspended for five years my arse. This is in no way an Imane Khelif or a Castor Semenya situation, where we're invited to believe these blokes didn't know they were blokes. This one is openly trans.
 
Last edited:
This thread is worth a read. As far as I know the "peeping Tom" man wasn't identifying as trans. The problem is that in an attempt to appease the trans lobby, authorities have abolished single sex changing rooms in favour of mixed sex "changing villages". Women have nowhere to go to escape from the male gaze, and it's a voyeur's paradise.

It doesn't actually appease the trans perverts, because they absolutely want single sex spaces. It's what they get off on. They get no kicks from being in mixed sex spaces! It's essential for their fetish that women-only spaces exist so that they can occupy them.

However, the world (like this thread at times) is full of people melting with sympathy for the poor trans flowers but who know nothing at all about what they're dealing with. They have this fabulous idea nobody ever thought about before, just make everything mixed sex and then the precious trans darlings won't be excluded from anything, isn't that just perfect?

Then when women protest that single-sex spaces are important and they don't want them abolished, the cries of "bigot" begin. Some women self-exclude, and the ones who remain are fair game to be perved on not just by the trans pervs but by the common and garden pervs who can't believe their luck.

And we end up with a situation where the cry will go up, but he wasn't trans, this has nothing to do with trans. It has everything to do with trans.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1980970097687564400
 
Rolfe said:
This thread is worth a read. As far as I know the "peeping Tom" man wasn't identifying as trans. The problem is that in an attempt to appease the trans lobby, authorities have abolished single sex changing rooms in favour of mixed sex "changing villages". Women have nowhere to go to escape from the male gaze, and it's a voyeur's paradise.

It doesn't actually appease the trans perverts, because they absolutely want single sex spaces. It's what they get off on. They get no kicks from being in mixed sex spaces! It's essential for their fetish that women-only spaces exist so that they can occupy them.

However, the world (like this thread at times) is full of people melting with sympathy for the poor trans flowers but who know nothing at all about what they're dealing with. They have this fabulous idea nobody ever thought about before, just make everything mixed sex and then the precious trans darlings won't be excluded from anything, isn't that just perfect?

Then when women protest that single-sex spaces are important and they don't want them abolished, the cries of "bigot" begin. Some women self-exclude, and the ones who remain are fair game to be perved on not just by the trans pervs but by the common and garden pervs who can't believe their luck.

And we end up with a situation where the cry will go up, but he wasn't trans, this has nothing to do with trans. It has everything to do with trans.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1980970097687564400
Click to expand...
Once again, one of the things that never happens, happened!
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Well, I was in some doubt about the provenance, but we see so many of these. Mostly on Tiktok.
Click to expand...
I find I have to make a conscious effort to not fall into the trap of "this is probably true because it looks like so many other things that I assumed are probably true". Especially on this kind of divisive, propaganda-laden topic. It's the reason I push back so much on third- or fourth-hand reports being cited, rather than the original, verifiable, corroborated report.
 
Ziggurat said:
Minnesota just took a step backwards. According to the state Supreme Court, it's illegal there to exclude trans identifying males from competing in sports against females.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1981016832674078752
Click to expand...

Shame on them. On to the Eighth Circuit appeal court to get that overturned.
Of the thirteen U.S. Court of Appeals, the Eighth Circuit is considered one of the most conservative.
 
Last edited:
Also, it's nothing more than you already see. Some guy with no explanation of who he is or what he's doing. Also, he is wearing pants and boots, but has a tablecloth or something wrapped around his waist, which I guess we were supposed to think is a dress and he's one of them cross dressing pervs who infest the school system, which we have no reason to think this guy is a part of.
 
Ron Obvious said:
Just click on the link. You don't need a twitter account. I don't and I could see it.
Click to expand...
Clicking on the link just takes us to the post you already embedded. Everything else requires an account.

Are you insinuating that James Woods provides a full and complete citation for the image, if you have the appropriate level of Twitter access?
 
Thermal said:
Also, it's nothing more than you already see. Some guy with no explanation of who he is or what he's doing. Also, he is wearing pants and boots, but has a tablecloth or something wrapped around his waist, which I guess we were supposed to think is a dress and he's one of them cross dressing pervs who infest the school system, which we have no reason to think this guy is a part of.
Click to expand...
The t-shirt and the flags in the background do tell a story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom