By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 13:44 - Apr 17 by giant_stow
Can't agree with the gay marriage point, boss - there's no hint of kick back against that. I think the trans stuff has been a very specific battle between two downtrodden groups - its a shame it got so nasty.
There is a movement from some to separate the LGB from the T. The LGB Alliance (or similar, doing this from memory) were one of the parties who supported this verdict.
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 14:24 - Apr 17 by J2BLUE
There is a movement from some to separate the LGB from the T. The LGB Alliance (or similar, doing this from memory) were one of the parties who supported this verdict.
I've never really understood why your sexuality and your gender are linked anyway
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 14:46 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe
I've never really understood why your sexuality and your gender are linked anyway
You've not heard of the NYC annual Halloween Parade?
"There’s a down town fairy singing out “Proud Mary” As she cruises Christopher Street And some Southern Queen is acting loud & mean Where the docks and the Badlands meet
This Halloween is something to be sure Especially to be here without you
There’s a Greta Garbo and an Alfred Hitchcock And some black Jamaican stud There’s 5 Cinderella’s and some leather drags I almost fell into my mug."
0
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:23 - Apr 17 with 2088 views
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 14:24 - Apr 17 by J2BLUE
There is a movement from some to separate the LGB from the T. The LGB Alliance (or similar, doing this from memory) were one of the parties who supported this verdict.
They don't get a great write-up in Wikipedia, and don't seem particularly representative. There are also suggestions of links to 55 Tufton Street.
And yet if you read what they have been criticised for it's all complete rubbish. The criticism has mainly come from trans rights groups and people too scared to say one word out of line with those groups.
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:45 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe
Nobody in the public eye who wouldn't straight up say 'trans women are women' with no if's or buts is not going to have a great write up online.
Any attempt at nuance to that above statement will see you lambasted as transphobic as they have been
Perhaps difficult to argue that the following isn't transphobic.
"Further concerns were raised last week when the LGB Alliance posted a tweet that violated Twitter’s policy on hateful conduct.
It read: “Adding the + to LGB gives the green light to paraphilias like bestiality – and more – to all be part of one big happy ‘rainbow family’. Wake up policy makers.
“LGB people refuse to be used in your artificial and dangerous argument that we must all be lumped together. #NoToHomophobia.”
The strange thing is that they have also co-operated with the anti-LGBT+ Heritage Foundation, which are rather strange bed-fellows.
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:51 - Apr 17 by J2BLUE
And yet if you read what they have been criticised for it's all complete rubbish. The criticism has mainly come from trans rights groups and people too scared to say one word out of line with those groups.
I'm weary of getting too involved in this, but I think it would be a mistake to concentrate too much on the right wing's influence on this debate. For me, its more *some* women (some gay themselves) vs *some* trans people.
Yes, the right has enjoyed dipping its ore in, but they're not the main combatants.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:54 - Apr 17 by giant_stow
I'm weary of getting too involved in this, but I think it would be a mistake to concentrate too much on the right wing's influence on this debate. For me, its more *some* women (some gay themselves) vs *some* trans people.
Yes, the right has enjoyed dipping its ore in, but they're not the main combatants.
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:51 - Apr 17 by J2BLUE
And yet if you read what they have been criticised for it's all complete rubbish. The criticism has mainly come from trans rights groups and people too scared to say one word out of line with those groups.
They’ve expended a lot of energy attacking childline for listening to children with gender identity anxieties.
But let’s all decide what we think of groups and individuals based on our own starting position shall we.
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 12:28 - Apr 17 by lowhouseblue
i don't think rowling is transphobic - her concern has been to assert the importance of sex based women's rights, which is where the law stands, and i don't see that as implying hatred for trans people. she's an abuse survivor and has experienced a women's refuge so her concern with sex based rights is clearly vert genuine. "gender is a social construct" - absolutely, and it is separate from biological sex. people who choose to change their gender deserve and have the full protection of the law against discrimination and harassment. we also need to develop a culture which is much more tolerant, accepting, valuing and supportive of trans people who are often vulnerable and suffer many disadvantages. but there is no reason for that to be at the expense of sex based women's rights. that conflict has been unnecessary. in terms of discrimination, for example, the comparator for a trans women in a discrimination claim is a man who hasn't transitioned - that's where the law is and for the vast majority of people that's where common sense is.
Weird that you should make defending Rowling the hill to die on here.
She has been deliberately trolling at times, and has often chosen to put her views in words which could only inflame the situation.
She has a huge social and traditional media reach, and has gone about maximising the impact of her statements.
There are people on the militant trans end of the spectrum who have similarly not given any care whatsoever to the impact of their statements on people's lives, from those in fear of domestic violence, to those who have been persecuted, or even lost their jobs, for mis-speaking.
J.K. Rowling has done wonderful things for young people through her Lumos foundation, but she has also contributed to the toxicity in this debate, and therefore caused harm to some other vulnerable people, including young people
0
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:38 - Apr 17 with 1694 views
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:45 - Apr 17 by itfcjoe
Nobody in the public eye who wouldn't straight up say 'trans women are women' with no if's or buts is not going to have a great write up online.
Any attempt at nuance to that above statement will see you lambasted as transphobic as they have been
legally and biologically trans women are not women. trans women are trans women - which is great. i have many friends and colleagues who privately think that but have chosen to keep quiet knowing the backlash they would receive. i know of people local to me who have faced calls for them to be sacked for saying something very similar outside of their work place. i'm hoping the supreme court has finally drawn a line until all of that.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
2
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:45 - Apr 17 with 1655 views
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 15:54 - Apr 17 by giant_stow
I'm weary of getting too involved in this, but I think it would be a mistake to concentrate too much on the right wing's influence on this debate. For me, its more *some* women (some gay themselves) vs *some* trans people.
Yes, the right has enjoyed dipping its ore in, but they're not the main combatants.
Your last sentence seems rather naive to me.
It seems clear to me that right wing media and politicians have been the primary source of the promotion of this issue, and the evidence would appear to back this up.
"In December 2020, the Independent Press Standards Organisation released a report stating that the average number of UK media stories about trans rights had jumped 414% between May 2014 and May 2019, from 34 per month to 176 per month, and that in the preceding year of research that number had risen to 224 stories per month.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Tories could have done something to clarify matters when they were in power but I sense they were happy to keep the issue running because it was the sort of culture war issue that they thought might win them the 2024 election.
Today we have Kemi Badeonoch saying the following, which makes me fear (if we were to have a Tory/Reform government) that we might be heading the way of the US in clamping down on DEI issues more generally.
"Kemi Badenoch calls for broader review of equality and gender recognition laws
Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch has said she would support a broader review into equality and gender recognition laws in the wake of yesterday’s supreme court ruling.
"I think that a review of equality acts, and the Gender Recognition Act is a good idea. These laws were written 20 years ago plus when the world was different. A lot of people are trying to change what the law means.
The supreme court has given a judgment, but I think that we need to update those laws to ensure that they are there to prevent discrimination, not for social engineering."
[Post edited 17 Apr 16:46]
5
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:46 - Apr 17 with 1629 views
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:33 - Apr 17 by ArnoldMoorhen
Weird that you should make defending Rowling the hill to die on here.
She has been deliberately trolling at times, and has often chosen to put her views in words which could only inflame the situation.
She has a huge social and traditional media reach, and has gone about maximising the impact of her statements.
There are people on the militant trans end of the spectrum who have similarly not given any care whatsoever to the impact of their statements on people's lives, from those in fear of domestic violence, to those who have been persecuted, or even lost their jobs, for mis-speaking.
J.K. Rowling has done wonderful things for young people through her Lumos foundation, but she has also contributed to the toxicity in this debate, and therefore caused harm to some other vulnerable people, including young people
i'm just expressing a view you disagree with - there isn't a hill and i'm not dying on anything.
i don't agree that rowling has been trolling. she has expressed her views that biological sex and sex based rights matter strongly in a very heated public debate. she has been a champion for women's rights as they have existed since the 1975 sex discrimination act and has suffered huge abuse in return. many of the things she has said and been abused for saying - that women are defined biologically - have now been completely endorsed in the context of the 2010 act by the supreme court.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:57 - Apr 17 with 1598 views
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:38 - Apr 17 by lowhouseblue
legally and biologically trans women are not women. trans women are trans women - which is great. i have many friends and colleagues who privately think that but have chosen to keep quiet knowing the backlash they would receive. i know of people local to me who have faced calls for them to be sacked for saying something very similar outside of their work place. i'm hoping the supreme court has finally drawn a line until all of that.
That's not strictly true when it comes to the law.
Section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 provides as follows.
"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)."
It is this, for example, that (before same sex marriage) allowed a trans women with a gender recognition certificate to marry a man.
Section 9(3) provides as follows.
"[Section 9](1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."
The Supreme Court concluded that the Equality Act 2010 was such an exception and stated in paragraph 2 of its judgment: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the [Equality Act] 2010.”
[Post edited 17 Apr 16:59]
2
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 17:05 - Apr 17 with 1530 views
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:57 - Apr 17 by DJR
That's not strictly true when it comes to the law.
Section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 provides as follows.
"Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)."
It is this, for example, that (before same sex marriage) allowed a trans women with a gender recognition certificate to marry a man.
Section 9(3) provides as follows.
"[Section 9](1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."
The Supreme Court concluded that the Equality Act 2010 was such an exception and stated in paragraph 2 of its judgment: “It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word ‘woman’ other than when it is used in the provisions of the [Equality Act] 2010.”
[Post edited 17 Apr 16:59]
yes the supreme court decision was in the context of the 2010 equality act - i've posted that several times.
but answer this - with the supreme court finalising that women are defined biologically in the 2010 act what in practice does a grc now get someone? it enables them to change their gender on official documents, it gets them a revised passport, but, in reality, what else?
[Post edited 17 Apr 17:07]
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 17:30 - Apr 17 with 1470 views
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 17:05 - Apr 17 by lowhouseblue
yes the supreme court decision was in the context of the 2010 equality act - i've posted that several times.
but answer this - with the supreme court finalising that women are defined biologically in the 2010 act what in practice does a grc now get someone? it enables them to change their gender on official documents, it gets them a revised passport, but, in reality, what else?
[Post edited 17 Apr 17:07]
I was responding to your very wide statement which didn't seem right to me and I wasn't to know you'd limited it earlier in the thread.
As regards the effect of a gender recognition certificate, I can't pretend to be an expert but I imagine that getting a birth certificate and passport with the new sex, and being lawfully of the new sex, is a big emotional pull for many..
[Post edited 17 Apr 17:36]
2
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 17:38 - Apr 17 with 1432 views
So a woman is a biological female then…. on 16:45 - Apr 17 by DJR
Your last sentence seems rather naive to me.
It seems clear to me that right wing media and politicians have been the primary source of the promotion of this issue, and the evidence would appear to back this up.
"In December 2020, the Independent Press Standards Organisation released a report stating that the average number of UK media stories about trans rights had jumped 414% between May 2014 and May 2019, from 34 per month to 176 per month, and that in the preceding year of research that number had risen to 224 stories per month.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, the Tories could have done something to clarify matters when they were in power but I sense they were happy to keep the issue running because it was the sort of culture war issue that they thought might win them the 2024 election.
Today we have Kemi Badeonoch saying the following, which makes me fear (if we were to have a Tory/Reform government) that we might be heading the way of the US in clamping down on DEI issues more generally.
"Kemi Badenoch calls for broader review of equality and gender recognition laws
Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch has said she would support a broader review into equality and gender recognition laws in the wake of yesterday’s supreme court ruling.
"I think that a review of equality acts, and the Gender Recognition Act is a good idea. These laws were written 20 years ago plus when the world was different. A lot of people are trying to change what the law means.
The supreme court has given a judgment, but I think that we need to update those laws to ensure that they are there to prevent discrimination, not for social engineering."
[Post edited 17 Apr 16:46]
There’s certainly a warning from across the pond that we should be paying attention to. I’ve no doubt that Badenoch would go the same way if she gets the chance, so I think you’re right to suggest that this could end up as a broader attack on gay people generally. We are seeing increases in homophobic crimes after all, so it suggests a lessening tolerance for LGB people in the UK, not just trans people. And whilst it’s more niche than something like immigration, the right wing media certainly seem to be driving the narrative - possibly it’s more social media commentators/ influencers (maybe?) - that’s where a lot of the hate seems to be coming from.
It’s politicised. We’d be daft not to acknowledge that.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
