The gender ideology thread

Originally Posted by nomadking

A biological male with a GRC is legally female. Is that no longer true?

"female" and "woman" are different, depending on context.


Wading through the actual judgement highlights what a incoherent nonsense the whole thing is

I refuse to hand-hold you through this. If you can’t understand what everyone else coming out of the court this morning seems to have grasped very easily, having heard the court’s summary of judgment, you’re probably beyond help.

There is no shortage of commentary available online now, and as far as I can see, none of the usual trans-activist suspects think there’s an exploitable loophole of the sort you seem to think you’ve found.

Again, please stop being a contrarian in every thread you take part in on here. It is really, really tedious.

I'm sick of the arguing for arguing sake myself. If only I was allowed to put certain members on ignore...

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Maggy

I'm sick of the arguing for arguing sake myself. If only I was allowed to put certain members on ignore...

Lol, being a moderator must be both a blessing and a curse!

[Itshim]

Unfortunately, the plebs here sometimes have the same problem . So l just skip past them.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Trump wants to get involved too!

Starmer told UK must repeal hate speech laws to protect LGBT+ people or lose Trump trade deal

---------- Post added at 11:08 ---------- Previous post was at 11:07 ----------


They haven't and are a lot more considered than many politicians.

Hate speech is a terrible term and far to broad to legislated for, and I would welcome any action to remove such laws.

Freedom of speech should be absolute. Obvious safeguards such as Incitement to violence should of course be included, but they should also be only if the threat is real, targeted and imminent.

As it stands a broad tweet saying "I'm sick of these small boats, we should all go down to Dover and chuck them all back in the channel" sent out to your dozen followers on X, could see you arrested in present day UK.

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by Maggy

. If only I was allowed to put certain members on ignore...

just imagine how the plebs here feel .

[nomadking]

Has anybody else looked at the actual judgment?
The starting point of the arguments is those that claim "female" and "woman" mean the SAME thing. So when the Equality Act 2010 says "woman" means a female of any age, they claimed it applies to any declared female. The court decision states that in that context "female" means "biological female", as the Act was trying to include girls, who are not yet classed as women.
So either the term "female" is context-specific or you cannot change to being female. Which is it?
If it's not context-specific then somebody can't declare themselves "female", unless they are biologically female. That's not going to do down well with certain groups.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Hate speech is a terrible term and far to broad to legislated for, and I would welcome any action to remove such laws.

Freedom of speech should be absolute. Obvious safeguards such as Incitement to violence should of course be included, but they should also be only if the threat is real, targeted and imminent.

As it stands a broad tweet saying "I'm sick of these small boats, we should all go down to Dover and chuck them all back in the channel" sent out to your dozen followers on X, could see you arrested in present day UK.

Absolute freedom of speech won't be absolute if it includes safeguards. That's contradictory. I think most people in the West would agree on freedom of speech with safeguards, as is the case in most Western nations.

Your argument is around what is incitement to violence and what isn't. I think context is another thing to bear in mind here, not just one sentence on its own.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Absolute freedom of speech won't be absolute if it includes safeguards. That's contradictory. I think most people in the West would agree on freedom of speech with safeguards, as is the case in most Western nations.

Your argument is around what is incitement to violence and what isn't. I think context is another thing to bear in mind here, not just one sentence on its own.

I'm not going to get into it, as it's not the "free speech" thread, but safe to say we are not in a good place in that regard in the UK. If you want to get into it, start a thread I'll happily join in.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

TBH I think those who can not see the wood for the trees and accept this without question as almost as deluded as the guys who get themselves butchered

If I went to the doctor and said I do not think my left arm belongs to me and it causing me severe distress I want it cut off . What do you think the diagnosis would be?

That was directed at those with opposing views to me btw hahaa

If people's arms identify as feet it might be easier to to pop them in their mouth when discussing this issue because I for one don't know enough about it to give an opinion I'd confidently stand by, seems to me like it's been hijacked by extremists on both sides so generally I just think a pox on both their houses and leave them to it. I've known a few trans people over the years and found them all to seem quite content after surgery and leading happier lives when they were the other gender, certainly more rational than the couple of transvestites I've known who were for want of a better word, bonkers.

My view for what it's worth is if you have a cock and balls you're a man and if you've had them removed to be a woman or actually added to be a man then that's what you are and up until that moment you're not, you're still the other so it's best to stay out of those toilets and stuff as if it were me I wouldn't want to cause anyone else distress

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

or you cannot change to being female. Which is it?

That one.

As you've never been able to change to female........ever.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

My view for what it's worth is if you have a cock and balls you're a man and if you've had them removed to be a woman or actually added to be a man then that's what you are and up until that moment you're not, you're still the other so it's best to stay out of those toilets and stuff as if it were me I wouldn't want to cause anyone else distress

Herein lies (part of) the problem - it isn’t about genitals. It’s about genetics, and which gametes you form in utero, which in turn determines your entire physical makeup, and that occurs in the womb and in childhood, well before puberty, and is turbo-charged by adolescence.

Men have superior bone density. They have a skeletal structure better adapted to run, hit and grasp more strongly than women. The hormones they are exposed to, particularly testosterone, which is produced in quantity by the small (male) gamete, i.e. your balls, set a pattern of typically male, aggressive, behaviour that cannot be fully unlearned later in life no matter what physical or psychological intervention you undergo.

There are sound biological reasons why women’s safe spaces must be protected from all men, and why those separations must be able to be made on the basis of biology, and why it is vitally important that activists are not allowed to muddy the definitions of those words so as to hinder those distinctions.

[pip08456]

On the day that a trans man can give birth to a child I'll call them a woman, until then they will still be a trans man.
Womens safe places have to be maintained, they should not have to subject themselves to society saying they have to accept men identifying as a woman in their space.

[thenry]

a ruling that makes sense.

Woke offensive criminal charges are no more

[Stephen]

So how will it go down when a trans male has to use a women's bathroom or in a woman's hospital ward etc. I'm sure that women will still feel rather uncomfortable with someone that looks male being there.