The Gender Non-binary debate.

[anonymous-user]

WorldBoss said:

Regardless of precisely what treatment you do or do not want to under go, you need to be signed off by at least two doctors/therapists trained in gender identity as being diagnosed with gender dysphoria before receiving medical treatment. This goes even with private services under the 'informed consent' model in this country.

Thanks for that.

for clarity, can you self-id prior to this and still be considered to have the protected characteristic (I think that's the term)?

[anonymous-user]

desolate said:

Thanks for that.

for clarity, can you self-id prior to this and still be considered to have the protected characteristic (I think that's the term)?

I THINK the way it works is that as soon as a person purpose that they are going to undergo gender reassignment, they are seen as having a protected characteristic under the anti discrimination laws.

IMO, that is vital as under the NHS care system as it, people have waiting lists of years to contend with before treatment options are even discussed, and it is expected that someone would have have transitioned socially for at least one year before treatment is actually offered.

While some people will have the physical characteristics and learned skills to be able to be able to pass as their gender at the beginning of transition, many of us do not. This Offers protection for those in the awkward stages of early in transition.

Interestingly, I believe cross dressing/drag is not covered by the same , and the protection for non binary people is not clearly defined within current legislation either.

[8.4L 154]

desolate said:

Thanks for that.

for clarity, can you self-id prior to this and still be considered to have the protected characteristic (I think that's the term)?

Might be useful

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/providi...

[Noodle1982]

Man investigated for retweeting a transgender limerick

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/24/man-in...

'....The cop told me that he needed to speak with me because, even though I’d committed no crime whatsoever, he needed (and I quote) ‘to check my THINKING!...'

Scary times ahead.

[8.4L 154]

Noodle1982 said:

Man investigated for retweeting a transgender limerick

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/24/man-in...

'....The cop told me that he needed to speak with me because, even though I’d committed no crime whatsoever, he needed (and I quote) ‘to check my THINKING!...'

Scary times ahead.

Only for assholes.

[amusingduck]

8.4L 154 said:

Noodle1982 said:

Man investigated for retweeting a transgender limerick

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/24/man-in...

'....The cop told me that he needed to speak with me because, even though I’d committed no crime whatsoever, he needed (and I quote) ‘to check my THINKING!...'

Scary times ahead.

Only for assholes.

What's the criteria for that, and who decides it?

[Halb]

amusingduck said:

What's the criteria for that, and who decides it?

humans

[andy_s]

8.4L 154 said:

Only for assholes.

The problem is who decides who is an ahole...

Ed. - Oops - missed the party; as above.

Edited by andy_s on Saturday 26th January 15:28

[ReallyReallyGood]

8.4L 154 said:

Noodle1982 said:

Man investigated for retweeting a transgender limerick

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/01/24/man-in...

'....The cop told me that he needed to speak with me because, even though I’d committed no crime whatsoever, he needed (and I quote) ‘to check my THINKING!...'

Scary times ahead.

Only for assholes.

It’s not illegal to be an asshole.

[AlexS_LDN]

Noodle1982 said:

We've had the trans people and toilet debate a million times over. But which toilets/changing rooms do non binary people use?

any one they wish to, dear

[amusingduck]

I think if you look like Don Logan in a skirt, you might cause a bit of a fuss if you walk into the ladies!

[Noodle1982]

AlexS_LDN said:

Noodle1982 said:

We've had the trans people and toilet debate a million times over. But which toilets/changing rooms do non binary people use?

any one they wish to, dear

'....I'm too sexy for my skirt, too sexy for my skirt, so sexy it huuuuuurts'

[AlexS_LDN]

Noodle1982 said:

'....I'm too sexy for my skirt, too sexy for my skirt, so sexy it huuuuuurts'

He does like his Porsches though. I wondered where Right Said Fred got to after all these years

[CanAm]

Noodle1982 said:

We've had the trans people and toilet debate a million times over. But which toilets/changing rooms do non binary people use?

I went to a gig at the Brighton Dome recently and the loos were labeled 'Male Gender Inclusive' and 'Female Gender Inclusive' so both were available to all. The doors carried the Transgender Friendly symbol.

[_dobbo_]

CanAm said:

I went to a gig at the Brighton Dome recently and the loos were labeled 'Male Gender Inclusive' and 'Female Gender Inclusive' so both were available to all. The doors carried the Transgender Friendly symbol.

Don't post that, Noodle won't be able to see his screen due to all the froth coming out of his mouth!

[j_4m]

CanAm said:

I went to a gig at the Brighton Dome recently and the loos were labeled 'Male Gender Inclusive' and 'Female Gender Inclusive' so both were available to all. The doors carried the Transgender Friendly symbol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVHLh218FJo

[Noodle1982]

_dobbo_ said:

CanAm said:

I went to a gig at the Brighton Dome recently and the loos were labeled 'Male Gender Inclusive' and 'Female Gender Inclusive' so both were available to all. The doors carried the Transgender Friendly symbol.

Don't post that, Noodle won't be able to see his screen due to all the froth coming out of his mouth!

What makes you say that?

I've never posted that i have an issue with gender neutral toilets, because i don't. I have simply asked questions regarding possible situations that may arise from the whole self I.D fiasco.

[PorkRind]

Atomic12C said:

And that is of course their absolute right - in a free society.

The root problem is that the term 'gender' is being attempted to be re-defined. Historically it simply meant "a classification" of the two sexes. So the term was inherently linked to 'sex'.
Sex is binary - for the vast majority of the human race. However as already discussed there are rare diseases whereby genetic problems cause a condition called "inter-sex". But these numbers are not considered anywhere significant enough to establish a requirement for a 3rd classification of 'sex'. It is by definition 'inter' or between the binary classification of sex ie. either male or female.

The 'conflict' arises when people try to redefine 'gender' to mean something social instead of something scientific.
It is acknowledged that in many dictionaries these days the term 'gender' has been re-defined to be the new social meaning, but for many people the term still means the scientific term. And for that reason many will see it as binary. This is not 'wrong' or 'offensive', this just means that modern social forcings and "offense" needs to accept this. (In the same manner of reason how modern social pressures expect others to accept their new re-definings).

I think those who wish people to accept a new term for 'gender' need to make it clear that it is purely just a modern social construct term that has split from any connection with science/biology. Otherwise if there is an insistence on stating that 'gender' is scientific then people will still refer back to what 'gender' traditionally meant in the field of biology - and will always refer to it as binary.

The most sensible post on this thread that aligns with my views and what i was taught at school.

[PorkRind]

neil1jnr said:

Yes I understand what goes on when transitioning.

To clarify my point, in day to day life, the majority of people assume the sex of other people, it's practical and generally if someone appears to be male or female then they likely are. So if going about my business I have no reason to assume otherwise, I will refer to someone by what I perceive to be their sex. Yes, if a transgender person appears to be a female by my own assumptions then I will refer to them as such. I have met many trangenders and I have yet to meet one that I didn't automatically know what sex they were at birth. So, if doubt crosses my mind, I can either ask them directly what sex they are, depending on situation/circumstance or I can refer to them as what I perceive to be the correct why for their sex.

To have expanded slightly on a paragraph from my last post below to clarify what I mean.

For example, if someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to have the appearance of a man and I referred to them as male, I'd be embarrassed and apologetic, like any normal human would be. If someone was genuinely born a female, but just happened to identify as a man because of 'gender' then I would generally refuse to refer to them as a man if it was obvious to me they were not, based on assumption.

I am not trying to be difficult and I understand and respect the points of view of others. I feel I have tried to be open as I can with my point of view.

For the record I am not as naïve as you may think I am on the topic, I didn't begin the belittling and frankly it ads nothing to the conversation apart from diluting your points of view from mat perspective.

I have nothing at hand for you to read in regard to links to the sources of material I have read online, or books I have read at home, I don't save them for situations like this (or remember books title or author as I read very often), nor am I going to just pull any random link off Google to try and back up my point of view for now.

However, I will add this:

XX- Female, XY - Male

Biological science proves that humans are born either male or female based on the chromosomes (I appreciate there are anomalies). Every male or female person is different, in respect to how they feel, how masculine or feminine they feel, in respect to what their individual personalities are. This does not change the fact that they can only be male or female. A man for example, that feels like he is female, wants to be referred to as female and identifies as female is still male. It's a fallacy for them to say otherwise.

Now, why should I refer to a biological male as a 'she', just because he want to be a woman, or feel like a woman? If biological man tells me he is non-binary and wants to be referred to by *insert made up pronoun here*, should I have to play along with what he believes he is, regardless if I believe that it is nonsensical? Someone whom identifies neither as male or female are delusional, regardless of what they feel, they are still male or female.

I find it quite astounding that my point of view, based on science and personal principle, is being mocked.

If anyone wants to reply like an adult and rationalise their point of view then that would be appreciated.

This.plus this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_UbmaZQx74
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDf772OWmxg

[PorkRind]

Clockwork Cupcake said:

This old chestnut.

I would imagine you have probably met, or at least walked straight past without another glance, some transgender people without realising it.

So, really, you feel you have a 100% success rate in detecting people who you detect. It's like the police saying that, of the people who they have detected speeding, they have a 100% success rate in detecting they are speeding.

Incidentally, I have a (biological) female friend who looks a little blokey who on occasions tells people she is a post-op TG just for sts and giggles.

I can tell 100%, its so obvious, if m > f its facial features such as adams apple, jaw line, forehead. Hands. Feet. Height. Body shape, if they speak; voice..