Royal College of Psychiatrists Statement

Silly wimminz always getting emotional about things!

Ereshkigal so nice to see you again. I appreciate that this debate is a particularly emotional one for you.

Nice gaslighting attempt there. No surprise. We see you.

Lang, my experience is limited and in the area of PFI contacts. I'm confused that you think otherwise.

I said otherwise because you said:

I have a fair amount to do with legal writings as a matter of fact.

Obviously, voluminous was me taking the piss because I don't really think that someone with voluminous experience in writing legal text would see no problem with legislation protecting or criminalising a concept which had no definition of that concept. Because that would be very unlikely.

I think we both realise by now that we're unlikely to agree on much but at least we are helping people like flowers work out their own positions. It would be nice if you remembered what you'd said a page or so back though.

(Couldn't resist that last one. I will never get to heaven so just as well I don't believe in it!)

That is often the case with newbies, until they begin to recognize the pattern of behavior.

Thanks, @thebewilderness, but this is not my first rodeo.

I got that flowers, no worries

fair enough rat it was meant as an observation, not a dig

I'm a newbie and I find @RatRolyPoly is measured, reasonable and refrains from personal attacks.

That is often the case with newbies, until they begin to recognize the pattern of behavior.

Thanks spoonless, that's appreciated.

Lang, my experience is limited and in the area of PFI contacts. I'm confused that you think otherwise.

Ereshkigal so nice to see you again. I appreciate that this debate is a particularly emotional one for you. Obviously I'd prefer it if you didn't take that out on me, but as I'm not that only poster to have been on the receiving end at least I won't be taking it personally.

flowers I'm glad talking things over clarifies your position - I genuinely am - and I appreciate the opportunity in good spirit to interrogate my own position too. Like you I find it more often firms up my own arguments rather than changing my mind, but I'm not the sort of person who thinks we need all agree.

No.
Play the ball or not at all.

Rat - is that you?

I don't believe a word that poster says. They have consistently proven themselves to be sly, goady and disingenuous. They grandstand across multiple threads and just waste everyone's time with nonsense.

Sea lion. Arf arf. I'm not a TRA, honest, I haven't made up my mind about anything, I'm just asking questions…

I'm a newbie and I find @RatRolyPoly is measured, reasonable and refrains from personal attacks.

Angry

The problem is that there is potential in the proposed changes to the GRA for any complaint by a woman about a transperson's behaviour to be positioned as "hate speech," so the complainant, rather than the transperson misbehaving, could be prosecuted.

Which neatly brings us back to Rat asserting that their voluminous experience of drafting legal text saw no problem in legislating for something called gender identity without ever defining with clarity for the law what gender identity is because, you know, different people might mean different things.

But then subsequently agreeing that a clear definition of adult was definitely needed for the law even though we sometimes use that terms in different ways in everyday life.

This would lead us to Angry's conclusion...

Sea lion. Arf arf. I'm not a TRA, honest, I haven't made up my mind about anything, I'm just asking questions...

See, Rat? You're actually helping to turn people away from rather than towards the nonsense that you're attempting to promote.

Bit of an own goal, that, but I guess it's hard to aim well when bouncing a ball on your nose.

The problem is that there is potential in the proposed changes to the GRA for any complaint by a woman about a transperson's behaviour to be positioned as "hate speech," so the complainant, rather than the transperson misbehaving, could be prosecuted.

Agree. Have to say, as a relative newbie, I find these posters you call sealions help me to get the arguments straight in my own head tho...

The problem is that there is potential in the proposed changes to the GRA for any complaint by a woman about a transperson's behaviour to be positioned as "hate speech," so the complainant, rather than the transperson misbehaving, could be prosecuted.

YY. The CPS implied exactly that in the awful "anti bullying" schools pack they wrote with Gendered Intelligence.

Oh yeah, the current law is shit too, and more open to abuse in the current climate than when it was passed. Less insane than self-Id though in that I'm not sure how anyone without a severe head wound or a vehement hatred of women could think that was a good idea.

If any misbehavior happened, women were able to complain and out they went

The problem is that there is potential in the proposed changes to the GRA for any complaint by a woman about a transperson's behaviour to be positioned as "hate speech," so the complainant, rather than the transperson misbehaving, could be prosecuted.

Sea lion. Arf arf. I'm not a TRA, honest, I haven't made up my mind about anything, I'm just asking questions...

This! It's uncanny...

I don't believe a word that poster says. They have consistently proven themselves to be sly, goady and disingenuous. They grandstand across multiple threads and just waste everyone's time with nonsense.

Sea lion. Arf arf. I'm not a TRA, honest, I haven't made up my mind about anything, I'm just asking questions...

The original justification for accepting transsexuals in women's spaces was basically look, we all know they aren't really women, but they're very unhappy about being men and wish they were women and also they're all gay anyway so at least they're not going to try to rape anyone in women's spaces, so maybe we can deal with the very small number of them trying to access those spaces on a case by case basis. If any misbehavior happened, women were able to complain and out they went. The fact that they knew that presumably helped to keep any urge to misbehave in check.

Nobody who either grudgingly (or even happily) agreed to the original compromise or who narrowly voted through the GRA was expecting "trans" to go from meaning "a tiny number of unhappy, effeminate gay men" to meaning "anyone who says they're a woman, including the ones who're kinkier than a corkscrew and who get off on flashing or voyeurism, or who're just MRAs excited about finding a new way to bully and intimidate women". Nobody though it was going to mean Eddie Izzard, ffs, or Stefoknee the kinky 6 year old grandfather. If they had the GRA would never have passed in the first place.

The boundary of what it means to be a women have been redefined and are being pushed back further by self-ID and that is a step too far.

This is exactly it. I think it's wrong to claim there is any other basis at all for special treatment than other men than their apparently serious medical condition. (And I still believe that it should be possible to have female only spaces) So the medical gatekeeping needs to stay.

argh woman not women (must edit before posting!)

boundaries