The Gender Non-binary debate.

Author
Discussion

8.4L 154

4,558 posts

192 months

Thursday 14th March
quotequote all
Vealie said:
CC. So you must have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)? That is the only way to gain
legal access to women's safe spaces unless you are specifically excluded under the exceptions in the equality act. Any other female presenting male is only in women's spaces because women permit them, are being kind, or are socialised not to cause a fuss.
That is an entirely false representation of the Equality act. In fact there is case law which found a transgender woman was discriminated against after being refused access to female toilets.

Vealie

104 posts

65 months

Thursday 14th March
quotequote all
What's your take then 8.4L?

The equality act says;

"There are six main areas set out in the Equality Act 2010 that acknowledge the need for women-only spaces, services, roles and activities and makes it lawful to exclude males (including trans-identifying males). In all cases the use of an exemption must be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. There are no blanket rules since each situation must be considered on its own merits and due regard must be given to all groups affected by invoking the exemption. The least discriminatory option must always be chosen.

Single-sex services, Occupational requirements, Communal accommodation, Gender-affected activities, Single-characteristic associations, Women-only shortlists(applicable to political parties only)"

Right enough it doesn't mention toilets specifically and I concede that they are a grey area but it clearly lays out exemptions as above.

What's your case law? I want to educate myself.

For the lurkers.....I just admitted I might be wrong. Ever heard that from a trans ally?


Halb

46,670 posts

122 months

Thursday 14th March
quotequote all
joshcowin said:
I predict it wont because he is trying to get a reaction from you, you are probably wasting your time.

You can tell from his language that he subtly trying to offend!
yes
He's not the only one, there are some very deft players here.

Vealie

104 posts

65 months

Thursday 14th March
quotequote all
_dobbo_ said:
Because self-ID isn't a factor here.

Whether self ID is a thing or not, a sexual predator can gain access to a place and commit a sexual assault on anybody, at any time. This is not suddenly made easier because they can dress up as a woman to do it.

I'm interested in these "children's safe spaces" you speak of - what are they please?
Think of any place where society assumes children are safe in the company of women but not in the company of men. E.G girl guides

descentia

116 posts

74 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Vealie said:
Think of any place where society assumes children are safe in the company of women but not in the company of men. E.G girl guides
You're going back to the premise that trans women are a threat to children. To put it very simply, those who transition have long given up on being male, acting in a male way, thinking like a male therefore agressing/assaulting or harming someone else in a male way just isn't going to happen.
You said earlier you can find tens of examples of trans women committing crimes of a serious nature and I imagine you'll quote from cases that cover the world and are decades old. There are millions of trans people and like I said if there was any evidence that trans wpomen and men were the perpetrators of sexual violence against women and children then we would all be rounded up and imprisened for the safety of society.

Their exists a thing called the Disclosure and Barring Service which checks on men and women who wish to have contact with vulnerable groups including children. It applies to everyone so in the case of Girl Guides women aren't exempt.

Generally children are safer in the company of women but then again there are cases of female sexual predators too.

I'm not sure where you are going with the GRC and Equality Act because the Government has legislated and in practice it hasn't made anyone less safe, taken away anyone's rights or caused any crimes to be committed.
The proposed reforms are still at the consultation stage and if passed then they won't change anything that isn't possible already. The whole self-ID outcry is a red herring because no one can tell if your trans or not, only the person concerned can know they are. There are no visible signs and the diagnosis is made after a medical evaluation. That expert evaluation doesn't change how you feel about yourself it only gives you a direction which you can choose to follow or not. So basically it's self-ID already.
What could the removal of the medical evaluation change ? A few less waiting lists for diagnosis and fewer bureaucratic hurdles to access treatment. In the meantime, as in now ,at this very minute, you can change the gender marker on all your legal documentation except for your birth certificate.
Self-ID is about the removal of the medical aspect, the legal part will remain so you still have to change paperwork, inform all those who need to know and commit to a life in your new gender if you are going to transition. I've heard mention of a one year limit before you can change back again if transition isn't for you and ,lets face it, a year is a pretty long time if you've made the wrong decision about something as challenging as swopping sides.

In the case of those people who decide they are going to be Dorothy on Mondays and Dave the rest of the week then they probably aren't that interested in changing anything, medically or legally, so they'll continue as they are for whatever reason they have for wearing female clothing and make-up occasionally. You might find it , I might even find it weird but there's no law against cross dressing.



Advertisement

Vealie

104 posts

65 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
I don't believe i have said a word about transwomen being a danger. I briefly referenced Autogynephiles without giving an opinion on them. I also discussed posting links to crimes committed by men posing as women. Finally, I mentioned gender-fluid people. All of these examples were used to illustrate how predators with bad intentions could exploit the PROPOSED changes to the GRA and the EA to gain access to women and children.

The commitment to live in the new gender for several years is part of the current legislation for gaining a GRC. It will not be required under PROPOSED changes nor will a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be required. I have been pointing out that as PROPOSED the changes and movement towards gender self-ID makes it easier for predators with bad intentions to gain access to women and children because women are not seen to be anything like the safeguarding risk that men are.

IMO transsexuals with a GRC pose no greater risk than any other group.


Clockwork Cupcake

59,053 posts

211 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Vealie, I'm not sure why you are so passionate about proving, with references and links, that trans people shouldn't be allowed, and are horrid activists out to repress 'normal' people and want to take over the world or whatever.

It seems that on the one hand, we have trans people asking if we could just be treated like any other human being, with respect and dignity, and basically allowed to get on with our lives. And on the other hand we have people like you who appear to be campaigning to prevent that.

This seems mean-spirited at best, and utterly horrid at worst.

This little cartoon popped up on my Facebook feed today, and it seems rather appropriate.



8.4L 154

4,558 posts

192 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Vealie said:
What's your take then 8.4L?

The equality act says;

"There are six main areas set out in the Equality Act 2010 that acknowledge the need for women-only spaces, services, roles and activities and makes it lawful to exclude males (including trans-identifying males). In all cases the use of an exemption must be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. There are no blanket rules since each situation must be considered on its own merits and due regard must be given to all groups affected by invoking the exemption. The least discriminatory option must always be chosen.

Single-sex services, Occupational requirements, Communal accommodation, Gender-affected activities, Single-characteristic associations, Women-only shortlists(applicable to political parties only)"

Right enough it doesn't mention toilets specifically and I concede that they are a grey area but it clearly lays out exemptions as above.

What's your case law? I want to educate myself.

For the lurkers.....I just admitted I might be wrong. Ever heard that from a trans ally?

Interesting that the person who came into this thread shouting about sea lioning is demanding evidence!

But anyway, that's not really a quote or text from the Equality act, its an interpretation (with added transphobia) from one of the Anti Trans Political Lobby groups. Having said that they do seem to have captured the important parts where use of exemptions has to be justified as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. I can't however for the life of me see how it supports your claim that a GRC is required to access single sex spaces. Especially given guidance from the EHRC has explicitly stated the opposite and made it clear the expectation of the EQ act is inclusion of trans people in their experienced gender and "proportionate means to legitimate aim" is in very restricted circumstances and on a case by case basis.






And for the record the Equality act actually defines a person as having the "gender reassignment" protected characteristic as

EQ Act 2010 said:
A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.






Edited by 8.4L 154 on Friday 15th March 10:27

George Smiley

1,147 posts

20 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
What if the service provider was a male escort with a strict female only rule?

Clockwork Cupcake

59,053 posts

211 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
George Smiley said:
What if the service provider was a male escort with a strict female only rule?
"What if", "what if", "what if". It's all about whatifism with you isn't it.

You're so concerned with edge cases and unlikely scenarios, and using them to show ipso facto that this means that the exception disproves the rule.

amusingduck

4,084 posts

75 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
_dobbo_ said:
Whether self ID is a thing or not, a sexual predator can gain access to a place and commit a sexual assault on anybody, at any time. This is not suddenly made easier because they can dress up as a woman to do it.
??

Of course it is. In exactly the same way that it's easier to steal tools from a building site wearing a high vis and hard hat, rather than shorts and a T shirt.

Gooseberry

18 posts

22 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
descentia said:
You're going back to the premise that trans women are a threat to children. To put it very simply, those who transition have long given up on being male, acting in a male way, thinking like a male therefore agressing/assaulting or harming someone else in a male way just isn't going to happen.
You said earlier you can find tens of examples of trans women committing crimes of a serious nature and I imagine you'll quote from cases that cover the world and are decades old. There are millions of trans people and like I said if there was any evidence that trans wpomen and men were the perpetrators of sexual violence against women and children then we would all be rounded up and imprisened for the safety of society.
You can't just decide to stop 'thinking like a male'. And of course trans women wouldn't be rounded up and imprisoned just because some commit crimes, after all we don't imprison all men just because most crime is committed by men.

I can't find data on trans women offending rates, but there is this survey saying 60 of 125 trans prisoners were convicted of sexual offences, which is a rather higher rate than you'd expect from cis women: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629
It covers both trans women and trans men though and there isn't data on inmates on shorter sentences (and apparently those with GRCs).

And there are recent cases from the UK, like this one from last year: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/70...

... where the offender then gets placed in a women's hostel: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/83...


Clockwork Cupcake said:
It seems that on the one hand, we have trans people asking if we could just be treated like any other human being, with respect and dignity, and basically allowed to get on with our lives. And on the other hand we have people like you who appear to be campaigning to prevent that.
But everyone just wants to be allowed to get on with their lives. The problems happen when there are conflicting interests between different groups.

Vealie

104 posts

65 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
"Vealie, I'm not sure why you are so passionate about proving, with references and links, that trans people shouldn't be allowed, and are horrid activists out to repress 'normal' people and want to take over the world or whatever."

CC - show me where I have said anything even remotely like that. I AM critical of woke, beardy-bro activists though. Their tactics of closing down debate are really tiresome.

8.4L. I demanded no evidence from you. I asked for your take on the topic being discussed. You seem well versed in the legal aspects of gender id so I was asking your opinion. Debating, if you like? Thanks for the screenshots. I'll read them tonight.


AshVX220

3,587 posts

129 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
amusingduck said:
_dobbo_ said:
Whether self ID is a thing or not, a sexual predator can gain access to a place and commit a sexual assault on anybody, at any time. This is not suddenly made easier because they can dress up as a woman to do it.
??

Of course it is. In exactly the same way that it's easier to steal tools from a building site wearing a high vis and hard hat, rather than shorts and a T shirt.
Nefarious people will do nefarious things. They always have and always will. If they feel they need to disguise themselves to do those things, they always have and always will. For many, many years now it would have been possible for someone to cross-dress and become a convincing woman to gain access to places and people.
Any new legislation won't change that. We've never demanded ID from someone to gain access to certain places and we never should.
If people are concerned, just be more vigilant (not vigilante).
With the internet and news media we now seem to think there's a peado round every corner, which is just bks.

Clockwork Cupcake

59,053 posts

211 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Vealie said:
CC - show me where I have said anything even remotely like that. I AM critical of woke, beardy-bro activists though. Their tactics of closing down debate are really tiresome.
Oh, come on. You came charging into the thread throwing around combative terms, making accusations of sealioning (thank you for introducing me to this term, and also demonstrating what it means), demanding people engage you in debate on things already discussed ad nauseum, and generally being obnoxious.

What you are now doing is something we have seen from several posters before you - softening your stance, setting yourself up as "the good guy who is only asking questions", making out that it is the trans people who are the unreasonable ones. Next you'll be claiming you are the victim, and people are ganging up on you. You'll poke people until you provoke a negative response, and then claim that you are being abused and picked on. As I said, we've seen this MO several times on this thread. You may even be the same person, for all I know.

Vealie said:
Their tactics of closing down debate are really tiresome.
Your tactics of trying to invalidate the debate are even more tiresome. As is having to go over the same ground again and again. It's like a revolving door.

Of course, you'll respond to this post by denying everything and claiming you're the victim. But I know gaslighting when I see it - I've been on the receiving end of it enough times to recognise it.


Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Friday 15th March 11:33

8.4L 154

4,558 posts

192 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Clockwork Cupcake said:
Vealie said:
CC - show me where I have said anything even remotely like that. I AM critical of woke, beardy-bro activists though. Their tactics of closing down debate are really tiresome.
Oh, come on. You came charging into the thread throwing around combative terms, making accusations of sealioning (thank you for introducing me to this term, and also demonstrating what it means), demanding people engage you in debate on things already discussed ad nauseum, and generally being obnoxious.

What you are now doing is something we have seen from several posters before you - softening your stance, setting yourself up as "the good guy who is only asking questions", making out that it is the trans people who are the unreasonable ones. Next you'll be claiming you are the victim, and people are ganging up on you. You'll poke people until you provoke a negative response, and then claim that you are being abused and picked on. As I said, we've seen this MO several times on this thread. You may even be the same person, for all I know.

Vealie said:
Their tactics of closing down debate are really tiresome.
Your tactics of trying to invalidate the debate are even more tiresome. As is having to go over the same ground again and again. It's like a revolving door.

Of course, you'll respond to this post by denying everything and claiming you're the victim. But I know gaslighting when I see it - I've been on the receiving end of it enough times to recognise it.


Edited by Clockwork Cupcake on Friday 15th March 11:33
yes

descentia

116 posts

74 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Gooseberry said:
You can't just decide to stop 'thinking like a male'. And of course trans women wouldn't be rounded up and imprisoned just because some commit crimes, after all we don't imprison all men just because most crime is committed by men.

I can't find data on trans women offending rates, but there is this survey saying 60 of 125 trans prisoners were convicted of sexual offences, which is a rather higher rate than you'd expect from cis women: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42221629
It covers both trans women and trans men though and there isn't data on inmates on shorter sentences (and apparently those with GRCs).

And there are recent cases from the UK, like this one from last year: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/70...

... where the offender then gets placed in a women's hostel: https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/fife/83...
Well I was trying to keep the discussion to simple terms . Since the point of transitioning is to realign the person with who they are inside then the use of thinking like a male probably wasn't the best phrase to use for the predicament of the trans woman. Maybe I ought to have said give up on all aspects of typical male traits and behaviours.

Like you point out the data on serious crimes by trans prisoners isn't available therefore to come to conclusions is precarious. I think all tht can be said in the cases of the sex offenders who are trans is that they are in that situation because they are sex offenders and happen to be trans. It wouldn't surprise me if you look into the criminal statistics that you'll find more women in prison for those offences than trans people but then that would be the case because there are more women to start with.

The Prison Service and the Home Office have guidelines in place for the treatment of prisoners and have presumably reached those decisions after much research and experience. However it doesn't stop bad people using the rules to do bad things under pretence.





descentia

116 posts

74 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
George Smiley said:
What if the service provider was a male escort with a strict female only rule?
Are you asking for a friend ?



_dobbo_

11,287 posts

187 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
Vealie said:
Think of any place where society assumes children are safe in the company of women but not in the company of men. E.G girl guides
I cannot think of any place where society assumes children are not safe with men but are with women. That's why I asked you to name one.

You've named girl guides - whatever their rules are about men, it's nothing to do with safety of the children.


George Smiley

1,147 posts

20 months

Friday 15th March
quotequote all
descentia said:
George Smiley said:
What if the service provider was a male escort with a strict female only rule?
Are you asking for a friend ?
Just asking 8.4L/CC if they were to use such a service provider and said service provider refused (assuming notified up front about the changes) - would that male escort be breaching the act?