You are here: Home | Forum | The gender ideology thread
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
I'll just pee in the doorway and save all the hassle
__________________
To be or not to be, woke is the question Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer. The slings and arrows of outrageous wokedome, Or to take arms against a sea of wokies. And by opposing end them.
But it doesn't.
If it applied to everything, then the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Gender Recognition Certificates that go with it, would be null and void. There could be no such terms as Trans male/female. Sports that have no biological advantage(eg Darts, Chess, Snooker) wouldn't have to accept Trans male/female. That is not the case, so it only applies to the EA 2010 and the SDA 1975.
But it doesn't.
If it applied to everything, then the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Gender Recognition Certificates that go with it, would be null and void. There could be no such terms as Trans male/female. Sports that have no biological advantage(eg Darts, Chess, Snooker) wouldn't have to accept Trans male/female. That is not the case, so it only applies to the EA 2010 and the SDA 1975.
Chess, I’ll give you.
But males do have an advantage in Snooker and Darts. And any self respecting female should refuse to compete against a man in a female category.
The Gender Recognition Act and certificate are pretty much useless now and will need to be reformed or hopefully removed
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 38,047
Re: The gender ideology thread
I wouldn’t give him anything
Sports with no physical male advantage typically have generational social male advantage. Chess, for example, has undergone intensive study in this area. There are social and cultural pressures that have afforded women fewer opportunities to participate and flourish. There are fewer than 40 female chess grandmasters (and well over 1,500 men). The top female player is barely in the top 90 world ranking.
A trans-identifying male has no business playing in any sport category dedicated to women, for any reason. He is a man, and the sooner we break this absurd special pleading from trans activists that they should be allowed access to women’s spaces just because of their inner sense of self, the better.
Services: Sky Q 2Tb, Sky Q mini, boxsets and Sports & Movies HD, Sky Fibre unlimited
Posts: 14,507
Re: The gender ideology thread
We have a woman on the team for Scotland Transplant active football. She plays well and as the only female that took part in the Euros, didn't have any disadvantage and wasn't given any special treatment apart from obviously a separate changing area. No one went eaiser on her for being female either.
But males do have an advantage in Snooker and Darts. And any self respecting female should refuse to compete against a man in a female category.
The Gender Recognition Act and certificate are pretty much useless now and will need to be reformed or hopefully removed
What advantage? There are short men that play snooker and darts.
The judgment specifically continues to allow the GRA and GRCs. They just can't be treated as "women"/"men" for the purposes of the Equality Act.
The EA 2010 inherited from the SDA 1973, the definition for the purposes of the Act, "woman" means a female of any age. The judgement effectively changes that to "woman" means a biological female of any age.
Incidentally, the reason we have never had a Father Ted movie is because his co-creator and the production company weren’t prepared to do it with Linehan’s name on it, owing to his outrageous and hateful belief in the biological basis of womanhood.
The judgment specifically continues to allow the GRA and GRCs. They just can't be treated as "women"/"men" for the purposes of the Equality Act.
Which negates most of the reasons for the need of it.
The slogan TWAW, is now meaningless because they are not, by law. If a female was in a bathroom in my place of work and Trans-female identifying man walked in the bathroom, she could quite rightly complain to HR and have something done about.
Quote:
The EA 2010 inherited from the SDA 1973, the definition for the purposes of the Act, "woman" means a female of any age. The judgement effectively changes that to "woman" means a biological female of any age.
Yes and a man with GRC, that says he is a woman, is a man.
__________________
The wheel's still turning but the hamsters dead.
Which negates most of the reasons for the need of it.
The slogan TWAW, is now meaningless because they are not, by law. If a female was in a bathroom in my place of work and Trans-female identifying man walked in the bathroom, she could quite rightly complain to HR and have something done about.
Yes and a man with GRC, that says he is a woman, is a man.
Not sure your Dr Dave link quite fits the law.
Quote:
(3) A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.
Trans men can be banned from certain women's sports(eg boxing).
Quote:
236. On the other hand, a biological definition of sex would mean that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1). But if, in addition, the providers of the boxing competition were concerned that fair competition or safety necessitates the exclusion of trans men (biological females living in the male gender, irrespective of GRC status) who have taken testosterone to give them more masculine attributes, their exclusion would amount to gender reassignment discrimination, not sex discrimination, but would be permitted by section 195(2). It is here that the gender reassignment exception would be available to ensure that the exclusion is not unlawful, whether as direct or indirect gender reassignment discrimination.
Quote:
169. The only other guidance as to the meaning of these expressions is given in the general interpretation provisions in section 212(1) which provide:
“In this Act …
‘man’ means a male of any age; …
‘woman’ means a female of any age.”
170. In other words, what is made unlawful is sex discrimination against women and men; and the provision in section 212(1) ensures that boys and girls are protected against discrimination connected to their sex.
171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group.
The definition of "male" and female" can be different outside of the definition of "man" and "woman" in the EA 2010.
Rather than define "male and "female", they just insert an implicit "biological" for the definition of "man" and "woman".
The judgment repeatedly refers to a biological male with a GRC to be legally female.
Quote:
265. We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning.
(i) The question for the court is a question of statutory interpretation; we are concerned with the meaning of the provisions of the EA 2010 in the light of section 9 of the GRA (para 2).
(ii) Parliament in using the words “man” and “woman” in the SDA 1975 referred to biological sex (paras 36-51).
...
(vi) The context in which the EA 2010 was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 definitions of “man” and “woman” referred to biological sex and trans people had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
...
Which negates most of the reasons for the need of it.
The slogan TWAW, is now meaningless because they are not, by law. If a female was in a bathroom in my place of work and Trans-female identifying man walked in the bathroom, she could quite rightly complain to HR and have something done about.
Yes and a man with GRC, that says he is a woman, is a man.
So a trans man has to use the female toilets and a trans woman has to use the male toilets. I can forsee this causing problems as the other users may believe that one gender is using the wrong toilet.
Additionaly, this swaps naturally born women from feeling at risk or being uncomfortable for trans people feeling this way instead. This is especially problematic for licensed premises where alcohol has been taken and toilets are often the place where people like to attack people because there are few/no witnesses or CCTV.
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 38,047
Re: The gender ideology thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter
So a trans man has to use the female toilets and a trans woman has to use the male toilets. I can forsee this causing problems as the other users may believe that one gender is using the wrong toilet.
Additionaly, this swaps naturally born women from feeling at risk or being uncomfortable for trans people feeling this way instead. This is especially problematic for licensed premises where alcohol has been taken and toilets are often the place where people like to attack people because there are few/no witnesses or CCTV.
As I keep saying, the risks are asymmetric. A man in a woman’s toilet poses a risk to the women. A woman in a man’s toilet is at risk from men.
Either way, it is an assertion of trans ideology that they have no choice but to role-play as the opposite sex, and it is an assertion that ought to be challenged, because as far as I can see, if a man slaps on lipstick and a dress and then complains he would be vulnerable in a men’s toilet, he has made himself vulnerable and he ought to be asking himself, in the first instance, what he could be doing to mitigate that. Beyond that, we ought to be challenging the men in the men’s toilet to see if they really do have such a narrow and fragile conception of masculinity that they can’t cope with unconventional forms of dress. And we also need to make very clear that whosever problem this is, it is not the women, who want to have only women in their single-sex women’s private space. A great big chunk of the trans rights movement is just men’s rights in lipstick, trying to make women give way to them. It is misogyny on stilts and it has to stop.
We might also ask ourselves how we survived the 1980s, which had more than its fair share of androgeny, cross dressing and New Romantics, all using the correctly sexed pub toilets. And somehow there was no genocide of Culture Club fans.
Trans dogma needs challenged. We need to stop assuming the bleating about genocide and lives at risk is true and start demanding receipts.
Join CF
You are here: 
