The gender ideology thread

This helps tease out some of the very different things taking place under the ‘trans umbrella’. The graphic is American, so it emphasises the role of money-making medics more than would be the case here (though they certainly exist in the UK), but you get the idea.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Chris

It’s a common error to assume that teens and young adults maintain the same social attitudes as they grow older. Real life eventually begins to have a say. Our young people tend to get their politics, or whatever passes for it, on TikTok, where gender madness is still at its height. But they do tend to grow out of their wide-eyed blinkered idealism.

There is a companion graph, which I’ll post when I find it again, which summarises the same Yougov survey taken a few years ago, in which a lot more of it was green. The direction of travel is going the right way, have no fear of that. Peak insanity probably passed a couple of years ago, and the many court and tribunal cases flooding the courts now are the result of the tide turning and people deciding they’re no longer putting up with illegal activist HR policies in their workplaces.

This is all new territory though Chris. Any norm from before does not count now. Lets face it the social media culture has not even reached its silver anniversary yet and I do not think there has ever been a time quite like this

---------- Post added at 20:37 ---------- Previous post was at 20:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it on here before, but I was around all this before it became fashionable. In 1990 I shared a house with a “trans-sexual”….(and two other men). Michael, who was pre-op and going through the process.

It was simple, he would dress as a man and I would call him Michael. On the days he dressed in women’s cloths, I would call him Michelle.

It was fine, it was all very amenable but he was a bit highly strung…to be polite.

He once came home in tears because he was thrown out of a night club for being in the women’s toilets……….can you imagine if that happened now.

The problem then, is the problem now. He looked and acted like a very camp gay man….and not a woman.

Back in the day it was clear.

We had Trans-sexuals, men who wanted to be women and will do the surgery to get there.

And Trans-vestites , men that wanted to be their mother.

Drag queens, gay men for which just being camp wasn’t enough.

And Auto gyno-Philes (to be fair they weren’t called that then). Men that want to dress in women’s clothing because they get a sexual kick out of it and by people looking at them, and there’s nothing stopping them getting a sexual kick assaulting women.

And now all these variants are now just called “Trans”, and we’re expected to treat them all the same.

This is the problem.

A trans-sexual just wanting to live their lives are most likely not a danger to women or women’s spaces. I wouldn’t say the same for some AGP’s

The trans in women’s sports, could come under a whole new category, I think the term is “cheat”

My born female second child come out to me as trans a couple of years ago. With everything in there life and the conditions they suffers I have no doubt in my mind they are just massively confused and do not fit in with the world and looking for answers. The medical profession I hold to blame for this as they are less than useless.
I love them and accept them for who they are but I know it is not really them but the conditions and pray one gets the help they need

Thankfully they accept I am old and do not fit in now and does not blame me when I make mistakes in speech. Thankfully it does not happen often.

Supreme Court about to decide what a woman is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t#player

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Chris

Supreme Court about to decide what a woman is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t#player

The way the UK judiciary has embraced the woke agenda, anything could happen here.

Official: The Pope is Catholic. Night follows day. Bears **** in the woods.

The narrow consequences of the court declaring that a woman is exactly what almost everyone knows she is, is that the Scottish government can no longer appoint a load of transvestites to the boards of public bodies and claim it has achieved equality between men and women in representation. This behaviour was the reason the court case was brought in the first place.

However, in order to address problematic behaviour arising from a piece of legislation passed at Holyrood, he SC has had to look at UK equality legislation and make some useful judgments that will apply across the whole UK.

What are the implications of the ruling? I find the whole topic confusing.

Is it that, in legal matters relating to the Equality Act, 'woman' refers to a biological woman?

Does it impact anything else?

[Stephen]

As per the ruling though.

In a landmark ruling, the judges say it is not a triumph for one side over another and the law still gives transgender people protection against discrimination

Originally Posted by Stephen

As per the ruling though.

It gives transgender people protection on the basis of their being, or perceived to be, transgender, because the EA has a specific clause doing so. That was never at issue. Trans-identifying people have not lost any rights under this ruling because those rights were already enacted specifically for them.

However, what the EA does not do, is give a man who claims he is a woman (a so-called ‘transwoman’) the protections granted to women under the Equality Act. The judges ruled that would be perverse because it would give such people double-rights under the Act. On this issue, the Scottish Government, and in fact the whole ridiculous TWAW movement, has absolutely lost.

There are serious real-world implications for this for any organisation providing a sex-based service (including staff changing rooms and toilets - NHS Fife should be cacking its pants right now).

---------- Post added at 10:41 ---------- Previous post was at 10:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

What are the implications of the ruling? I find the whole topic confusing.

Is it that, in legal matters relating to the Equality Act, 'woman' refers to a biological woman?

Does it impact anything else?

A woman is an adult human female. That is how the Equality Act 2010 should be read. Even if you have a gender recognition certificate, if you are not biologically female you do not have the right to services that are provided on the basis of sex. For the avoidance of doubt, their honours made clear that in normative language, ‘woman’ and ‘female’ mean biology, not feelz. So a so-called ‘transwoman’ (i.e. a man who claims to be a woman) has no legal right to be housed in a women’s prison, a women’s hospital changing room, or a women’s toilet or a rape crisis centre, because he is not a woman.

The next logical question is what is the Gender Recognition act even for? Because it doesn’t do the one thing trans-identifying people seem to want it to do, which is create an entire identity with an acquired sex exactly as if they were, biologically, what they feel they are in gender terms.

[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 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

The way the UK judiciary has embraced the woke agenda, anything could happen here.

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

[nomadking]

Still leaves open the definition of "female" as in "female changing rooms".

Originally Posted by nomadking

Still leaves open the definition of "female" as in "female changing rooms".

It does not such thing.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

It does not such thing.

Where does it use the word "female"?
Link

For those just joining us, the Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

• The decision came following a lengthy legal case between the Scottish government and the women's rights group For Women Scotland, regarding equalities legislation.
• Judge Lord Hodge said the decision was not "a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another".
• However the court ruled the Equality Act 2010 would be “incoherent and impracticable” if the "certificated sex" view - letting a person with a gender recognition certificate be classed as that gender - took hold.
• The ruling said that "the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man."
• There was an outpouring of emotion following the verdict, as women's rights campaigners celebrated.
• For Women Scotland said the judges had said what they always believed to be the case, that women are protected by their biological sex.
• The UK government stated the decision provides clarity for hospitals, refuges and sports clubs.
• Charity Scottish Trans asked trans people "not to panic" about the news.

The whole thing is about whether "female" and "woman" are linked and interchangeable. IE that changing to be "female", automatically becomes changing to be a "woman".
From 88 page judgment.

155. Against that background, we turn to address the central question in this appeal.
156. To recap, section 9(1) of the GRA 2004, read with section 9(2) and (3), has the effect that the gender of a person with a GRC becomes the acquired gender “for all purposes” 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”,

Originally Posted by nomadking

Where does it use the word "female"?
Link

Your reasoning is flawed.

The ruling itself said that the court made its decision based on “plain reading” of words even when they are not explicitly defined.

It does not need to explicitly include the word “female” for it to be blindingly obvious to anyone (except you) that the ruling does in fact cover the word female. The definition of “female” is clear on exactly the same reasoning that the meaning of “woman” is clear. It’s biology. End of.

Stop being a contrarian. It’s tedious.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Chris

Your reasoning is flawed.

The ruling itself said that the court made its decision based on “plain reading” of words even when they are not explicitly defined.

It does not need to explicitly include the word “female” for it to be blindingly obvious to anyone (except you) that the ruling does in fact cover the word female. The definition of “female” is clear on exactly the same reasoning that the meaning of “woman” is clear. It’s biology. End of.

Stop being a contrarian. It’s tedious.

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

266. For all these reasons, we conclude that the Guidance issued by the Scottish Government is incorrect. A person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of “woman” for the purposes of sex discrimination in section 11 of the EA 2010.

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


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

[Jaymoss]

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

Seriously if you want to live in that reality then all the power to you. I however will live in a binary world and if there are consequences for my "Intolerance" then so be it. Mental illness should be treated and not encouraged and those that encourage need to seek treatment also