The gender ideology thread

[ianch99]

I don't see a problem with Gender-neutral toilets as a solution. It removes the obvious need to implicitly assert your F/M gender when you are using them. We have just come back from Amsterdam and the toilets in the National Opera House just had urinal and stall symbols on the doors so you chose what met your needs at the time. Seems to work ok ...

[nomadking]

Sports are separated by physicality, whether by biological sex or age. Once you have gained muscle mass(from biology or illegal steroids), you can retain it by training more. Any gain from being male or taking drugs, is still there.

Toilets and changing rooms are a bit more complicated. The underlying basis doesn't really involve biological sex or any gender ideology. The underlying basis is what you find sexually attractive, which historically has been on the simple premise of biological sex.

The wheels are slowly starting to come off the gender clown car in Scotland in the aftermath of some jaw-dropping testimony at an industrial tribunal in Dundee. A nurse is claiming harassment against a doctor and NHS Fife. The doctor is a man who LARPs as a woman (Dr “Beth” Upton). The nurse, Sandie Peggie, was suspended after telling him he should not be using the women’s changing room. At the tribunal the doctor claimed that he is a ‘biological female’ and that the concept of biological sex is a ‘nebulous dog-whistle’ for which there is no real definition.

It has only had a little national news coverage but it has been covered fully enough in the media in Scotland to open a few eyes. Yesterday Scottish Labour disavowed the Gender Recognition Reform Act (which would have introduced Gender self-ID, had the UK Supreme Court not struck it down for interfering with the UK Human Rights Act), claiming they would not have voted for it had they known then what they know now. What they claim to know now, but did not know then, was what campaigners were yelling at them all along. If you tell people they can identify into a category, the injustice suffered by Sandie Peggie and many others is inevitably what follows.

Further, MSPs have been trying this week to get the SNP government to make some sort of statement on all this, but the parliament’s presiding officer - an SNP politician - has been blocking them, over and over again.

Sadly what has been happening in Scotland is the SNP/Green obsession with genderism, led by Nicola Sturgeon and, frankly, aided and abetted by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Lib Dems, has become de-facto public sector policy in Scotland despite the legislation that was to underpin it being struck down. I bet Nurse Peggie isn’t the only woman being institutionally harassed for refusing to pretend a man is a woman just because he says he is.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgm17y4e3zro

[Stephen]

It wasn't as plain and simple as she said Doctor Upton shouldn't be there.

She said Dr Upton made her feel uncomfortable and then compared the transgender woman to the trans criminal that was in a woman's prison. I'm sure there was other occasions mentioned too.

It was the Scottish Conservative party that had the issues yesterday not Labour

The Tories called for the Scottish government to provide clarity on the issue amid an ongoing employment tribunal

The SNP government did issues a statement

The government later issued a statement saying it supports provisions under the Equality Act 2010 which allow for trans people to be excluded from some spaces when its it a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim".

Originally Posted by Stephen

It wasn't as plain and simple as she said Doctor Upton shouldn't be there.

She said Dr Upton made her feel uncomfortable and then compared the transgender woman to the trans criminal that was in a woman's prison. I'm sure there was other occasions mentioned too.

It was the Scottish Conservative party that had the issues yesterday not Labour


The SNP government did issues a statement

Dr Upton shouldn’t be there - the workplace health and safety regulations 1992 specify there should be separate facilities for men and women. Dr Upton is a man. He cannot self-ID into women’s spaces, but NHS Fife seems to have set that as its policy (which is against the law) and then suspended the nurse for expressing her legally held and expressed views (contra the Equality Act).

The tribunal has heard damning testimony that Upton was taking notes on his phone of every time the nurse left the changing room without acknowledging him (as evidence that she had a problem with him) before making a complaint when she did eventually confront him. She was damned if she did and damned if she didn’t. And when she did it was because she believed she was having a menstrual flood - exactly the sort of thing you don’t want to have to deal with in the presence of a man who had no legal right to be there. Furthermore the tribunal has heard that Upton spent weeks consulting with the BMA trying to find out what he would have to accuse the nurse of to get her suspended, the complaint about the changing room not having done the trick. He then accused her of compromising patient safety, an allegation for which the evidence is non-existent.

Incidentally, the case is exactly the same as the Isla Bryson case. Bryson was a man accessing female-only spaces (a women’s prison) on the basis of self-ID’ing as a woman. Theodore “Beth” Upton is a man accessing female-only spaces (a female changin room in a hospital) on the basis of self-ID’ing as a woman. In both cases, these men were indulged by a Scottish public sector body taking its steer from the SNP instead of the law.

The underlying problem is that the SNP, aided and abetted by the Scottish Greens, have infused self-ID into public sector policy in Scotland even though their self-ID law was ruled to breach the UK law. And that has opened the door for vexatious behaviour by narcissists like Theodore “Beth” Upton, a man who LARPs as a woman.

[nomadking]

i would like to think that if I was that way inclined, I would be more considerate of others.

Originally Posted by nomadking

i would like to think that if I was that way inclined, I would be more considerate of others.

Transvestitism is not the problem, per se. We live in a mature democracy, so of course people should wear what they want, and if they want to think they’re a woman and perform regressive female stereotypes in public, well, fine, I guess.

The problem is that genderism has arrived at the point where it is no longer satisfied with acceptance of the internal feelings of those it has ensnared. It demands fealty from all of us to the unfalsifiable claim that ’trans women are women’ and ‘trans men are men’ - with all the attendant risks those ridiculous claims bring with them, most particularly for women and children.

Government commissions study and discovers the Pope is indeed Catholic, and bears do indeed defecate beneath arboreal cover.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge4jyz9dyo

Cancer screenings have been missed and criminal convictions overlooked because of how data is collected about people's biological sex and gender identity, an independent review found.
The review, led by Prof Alice Sullivan, outlined the risks of conflating biological sex and gender when it comes to clinical care, sex-specific cancer screening and safeguarding.
Prof Sullivan, a professor of sociology at University College London, urged public bodies to collect data on both sex and gender identity by default "across the board" to ensure it is accurate.

Meanwhile idiots like Dr “Beth” Upton, respondent in the Sandie Peggie case also involving NHS Fife, took to the witness stand last month to insist that because he wears a dress and grew out his hair, he is in fact a “biological woman”. (Not a word of a lie, he believes that because he [thinks he] is a woman, and he is biological, this makes him a biological woman - and this fool actually has a medical degree and is on the loose in A&E in a Scottish hospital).

Remember the days when nobody was afraid to call out nonsense for what it is, and now we have to commission expensive reports like this one, and the even more expensive and searching Cass Review, in order to put the lid back on it? We have lost our collective mind.

[Hom3r]

Professor Winston (now Baron), said that there are biological genders, and these cannot be changed.

he got death threats.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-debate.html

'You CAN'T change your sex': Fertility expert Professor Robert Winston says 'mutilating ourselves' changes gender but 'we cannot escape our genetics' - after Church of England said it didn't have a definition of 'woman'

Originally Posted by Chris

Government commissions study and discovers the Pope is indeed Catholic, and bears do indeed defecate beneath arboreal cover.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvge4jyz9dyo



Meanwhile idiots like Dr “Beth” Upton, respondent in the Sandie Peggie case also involving NHS Fife, took to the witness stand last month to insist that because he wears a dress and grew out his hair, he is in fact a “biological woman”. (Not a word of a lie, he believes that because he [thinks he] is a woman, and he is biological, this makes him a biological woman - and this fool actually has a medical degree and is on the loose in A&E in a Scottish hospital).

Remember the days when nobody was afraid to call out nonsense for what it is, and now we have to commission expensive reports like this one, and the even more expensive and searching Cass Review, in order to put the lid back on it? We have lost our collective mind.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I don't see a problem with Gender-neutral toilets as a solution. It removes the obvious need to implicitly assert your F/M gender when you are using them. We have just come back from Amsterdam and the toilets in the National Opera House just had urinal and stall symbols on the doors so you chose what met your needs at the time. Seems to work ok ...

Gender neutral toilets, depending on the layout, are a real pain if like me you need to catheterise yourself. I try to use the wheel-chair accessible units as even male toilets can be interesting.

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

Gender neutral toilets, depending on the layout, are a real pain if like me you need to catheterise yourself. I try to use the wheel-chair accessible units as even male toilets can be interesting.

Gender neutral toilets are not safe for women unless they are a single, lockable room containing all necessary facilities (toilet, sink, dryer, mirror), whose door is straight off an open public space. Where you see those in the UK they generally are all-in-one male/female/accessible rooms, although as I’m not looking for accessible facilities I admit I may not notice where those are missing.

The important nuance here that must not be lost is that a single public restroom where, behind a door, there is a communal handwashing area and beyond that, a line of unisex cubicles, is not a safe space for women and girls, even if the cubicle door/wall extends from floor to ceiling. It permits men to mingle with women and to hang around outside their cubicle, away from public view.

*A* man may well not be a risk - I’m not, I’m sure you’re not - but men, as a category, are most definitely a risk to women in statistical terms. It is why we have had toilets segregated by sex ever since the Victorians began accepting the need for public conveniences for women.

And, as so-called ‘transwomen’ are in fact men, the same statistical rules apply. They are at least as much of a risk, and in fact the numbers of trans-identifying men in UK prisons for sex crimes suggests the risk may actually be higher.

Originally Posted by Chris

Gender neutral toilets are not safe for women unless they are a single, lockable room containing all necessary facilities (toilet, sink, dryer, mirror), whose door is straight off an open public space. Where you see those in the UK they generally are all-in-one male/female/accessible rooms, although as I’m not looking for accessible facilities I admit I may not notice where those are missing.

The important nuance here that must not be lost is that a single public restroom where, behind a door, there is a communal handwashing area and beyond that, a line of unisex cubicles, is not a safe space for women and girls, even if the cubicle door/wall extends from floor to ceiling. It permits men to mingle with women and to hang around outside their cubicle, away from public view.

*A* man may well not be a risk - I’m not, I’m sure you’re not - but men, as a category, are most definitely a risk to women in statistical terms. It is why we have had toilets segregated by sex ever since the Victorians began accepting the need for public conveniences for women.

And, as so-called ‘transwomen’ are in fact men, the same statistical rules apply. They are at least as much of a risk, and in fact the numbers of trans-identifying men in UK prisons for sex crimes suggests the risk may actually be higher.

[jfman]

https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...kathleen-stock

University of Sussex fined over failure to uphold freedom of speech in relation to gender woo woo.

Indeed. And the university’s vice-chancellor has gone off on one and said some very inadvisable things to the FT last night - as some commentators have pointed out, she wasn’t in office when all this went down, she had the opportunity to just absorb it and move on as there was no risk to her personal reputation, but instead she has decided to make the rather implausible claim that the university now can’t protect people from hurty words, when the whole case springs from their refusal to protect Prof Kathleen Stock from outright intimidation which led to her being hounded out of her job, all for the dreadful crime of believing that sex is real and matters.

She also seems to be totally unaware of the more than 30 (and rising) employment tribunals which have examined cases not dissimilar to this, every one of which has found for the claimant against their (former) employer.