The Gender Non-binary debate.
Discussion
George Smiley said:
Gecko, come back from a date after you've f
ked a trans without know g then tell me my scenario isn't a risk
Is that what this is all about then? It happened to you, and now you have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?ked a trans without know g then tell me my scenario isn't a risk Also, risk of what? Catching homosexuality?
Do you *really* think that trans women prey on men like you, trying to dupe them into sex with them? Honestly?
8.4L 154 said:
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!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?
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
One last thing. The EHRC screenshots above are not the latest take on this issue from the EHRC. They issued the following statement last year. This was intended to clear up confusion on the subject of transgender people and single-sex exemptions.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/ne...
The key passage for CC and 8.4L is as follows; (and from an unimpeachable source)
"Certain exceptions in the Act set out circumstances in which it is permissible to treat someone differently because of their sex or gender reassignment, for reasons of public policy or to protect the rights of others. The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective. This will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance.
Under the Act, the protection from gender reassignment discrimination applies to all trans people who are proposing to go, are undergoing or have undergone (part of) a process of gender reassignment. At the same time, a trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC."
'....apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC'. Toilets are still a grey area but this is quite clear when considering the sex-based exemptions.
8.4L. Something to think about at least?
Back to lurking.......
As more of a reader than a contributor to this thread I have to say, George, the playing of your one stringed guitar is getting frightfully boring.
Please provide one link showing an instance of a man being duped in to bed by a trans female. I can't recall ever reading (etc) of it happening.
It's not impossible, but I would presume that the majority of trans ladies are not actually ashamed of who they are, and would want to be accepted. Why would they be interested in someone who thought 'yuck' about their identity?
Please provide one link showing an instance of a man being duped in to bed by a trans female. I can't recall ever reading (etc) of it happening.
It's not impossible, but I would presume that the majority of trans ladies are not actually ashamed of who they are, and would want to be accepted. Why would they be interested in someone who thought 'yuck' about their identity?
George Smiley said:
Yes they do
OK I think that statement sums you up. I would be more worried if I were a women trans or other wise and a shagged a like you...your hatred is just totally irrational. Bar women at work I have never met a trans women and believe its relatively rare so the chance of me unknowingly having sex with one is about as concerning as black holes in space
j_4m said:
Halb said:
Have you read, MOnstrous Regiment?
A quote from it, 'And a woman by herself is missing a man, while a man by himself is his own master.
Trousers. That's the secret. Trousers and a pair of socks. I never dreamed it was like this. Put on trousers and the world changes. We walk different. We act different. I see these girls and I think: Idiot's Get yourself some trousers!'
Great book, good old fashioned silliness with a sharp satire stick.A quote from it, 'And a woman by herself is missing a man, while a man by himself is his own master.
Trousers. That's the secret. Trousers and a pair of socks. I never dreamed it was like this. Put on trousers and the world changes. We walk different. We act different. I see these girls and I think: Idiot's Get yourself some trousers!'
"Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because—what with trolls and dwarfs and so on—speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green"
I do love a bit of pTerry.
“Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this, Ridcully reflected as the council grumbled on, would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to choose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
Indeed, as a goddess she would have lots of shoes, and thus many choices: comfy shoes for home truths, hobnail boots for unpleasant truths, simple clogs for universal truths, and possibly some kind of slipper for self-evident truth.”
“Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this, Ridcully reflected as the council grumbled on, would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to choose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
Indeed, as a goddess she would have lots of shoes, and thus many choices: comfy shoes for home truths, hobnail boots for unpleasant truths, simple clogs for universal truths, and possibly some kind of slipper for self-evident truth.”
Funnily enough, I think before he became more famous, Terry Pratchett's gender-neutral first name did result in him getting a few fan letters that assumed he was female, particularly regarding Equal Rites.
ked "a trans" without knowing.
George Smiley said:
Gecko, come back from a date after you've fked a trans without know g then tell me my scenario isn't a risk
I'll work on what I feel is the fairly solid basis that it isn't a risk until I come back from a date having fked a trans without know g then tell me my scenario isn't a risk ked "a trans" without knowing.George Smiley said:
You, world boss and 8.4L all stated that the trans person doesn't have to declare their previous genital state - your own words.
So? There is a huge leap between that statement and us being duplicitous predators out to actively trick transphobic men into having sex with us.
gregs656 said:
I am not going to tell you what to post, but since protesting that you were not obsessed with this you have posted about nothing else.
I'm not you going to tell you what to read, but go back 100 pages. In black and white it is there, yet I'm not allowed to mention it when I'm questioned if I trust a trans to be open about their situation?George Smiley said:
I'm not you going to tell you what to read, but go back 100 pages. In black and white it is there, yet I'm not allowed to mention it when I'm questioned if I trust a trans to be open about their situation?
Not allowed to mention it? Jesus Christ, it's all you seem to do in this thread.How many more times are you going to flog this dead horse? You've had your question answered umpteen times.
You've also been advised multiple times that referring to a trans person as "a trans" is offensive, yet you doggedly persist in doing so. I can only conclude that you are now doing it deliberately.
Do you actually have anything else to contribute to this thread?
Vealie said:
8.4L 154 said:
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!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?
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
One last thing. The EHRC screenshots above are not the latest take on this issue from the EHRC. They issued the following statement last year. This was intended to clear up confusion on the subject of transgender people and single-sex exemptions.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/ne...
The key passage for CC and 8.4L is as follows; (and from an unimpeachable source)
"Certain exceptions in the Act set out circumstances in which it is permissible to treat someone differently because of their sex or gender reassignment, for reasons of public policy or to protect the rights of others. The use of such exceptions generally needs to be justified as being a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate objective. This will often require a case-by-case approach to determine what is legitimate and proportionate in any given circumstance.
Under the Act, the protection from gender reassignment discrimination applies to all trans people who are proposing to go, are undergoing or have undergone (part of) a process of gender reassignment. At the same time, a trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC."
'....apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC'. Toilets are still a grey area but this is quite clear when considering the sex-based exemptions.
8.4L. Something to think about at least?
Back to lurking.......
Where the GRC comes in is only in reference to the comparator for sex discrimination, it is not relevant to gender reassignment discrimination as both a GRC and non GRC holder have the gender reassignment protected characteristic regardless. In effect it shifts the bar higher for legal use of exceptions for GRC holders.
The very premise of the Equality act is against discrimination rather than the claims of anti trans political lobby groups of "sex based rights". The default position is that trans people are not discriminated against due to gender reassignment and this means the default position is they are treated the same as their acquired gender unless it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim not to do so. As has been said by the EHRC the GRC forms part of the evidence base for discrimination in single sex spaces but all of the specific circumstances are relevant as a whole in coming to a decision about if treatment is a lawful exception or discrimination.
Edited by 8.4L 154 on Friday 15th March 22:39
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff