14th October 'Nolan Investigates' podcast - Stonewall?

So gendercanbe invisible, unnoticed, inconsequential and have no bearing on anything?

Still doesn't explain now you can be non BI- nary ( bi meanings two) amd be pansexual . Are there 2 genders or more?

"Those who identify as pansexual feel attraction to people without noticing their gender, while omnisexual people recognize the gender of potential partners."

So gender can be invisible, unnoticed, inconsequential and have no bearing on anything?
Isn't that what we've been saying for donkey's years?

You are transphobic - you refuse to delete my biological sex from your records and replace it with my gender identity.

You are transphobic - you refuse to give me appropriate healthcare services.

"The only way we can do that, sir, is to treat you based on your biological sex"

"OK then"

You are transphobic - you refuse to delete my biological sex from your records and replace it with my gender identity.

You are transphobic - you refuse to give me appropriate healthcare services.

repeat ad infinitum

Rights but not responsibilities by the looks of it.

What rights should they have?

One of the "rights" they have campaigned fir puts themselves at risk. Such as the right to alter your paperwork at the drs. This means medical screenings aren't always targeted at the right people. But it's precisely what was asked for. You cant request to change her details then complain when that means your health suffers as a result. Do they not realise they are all just being used to keep the organisations paid to deal with the very problems they created in business?

What rights do trans people have under the law as it stands today?

What rights should they have?

Can we have answers to these please?

An aside - I have just come out as explicitly gender critical on facebook and some trans activist has accused me of xenophobia. That is the level of debate we're at.

No adjustments needed by employer imo

I would love to see a break down. Of discrimination trans people claim to face. Whether it's truly because of their identity, and how much is down to other things. I mean you can be trans and still poo at your job, apply for jobs that aren't appropriate for your personality and skill level , be unable to handle criticism or direction, and exhibit behaviour not compatible with the job.

How many were positions they put themselves in in the first place. Such as running a rape crisis centre or being a bra fitters where the liklihood is that a female staff member will be requested. A person wouldn't be rejected on the basis of being trans but being male. Same as any other male staff member.

We hear alot abiut being marginalised and discriminated against but we never hear the actual reasons.

If a male turned up to a job interview in a short skin tight, low cut dress and shiny pvc thigh high boots they'd probably be rejected. Bit because if being trans it for turning up inappropriately dressed fir the interview. As woyid any other women who turned up like that unless it was an interview fir a pole dancing club.

What basis does this discrimination take?

Gender identity = personality, surely?

Nothing to do with someone's sex

No adjustments needed by employer imo

Frankly at this point I wonder what a male would have to do before some women were prepared to admit that possibly, yes, their intentions might be questionable and a boundary might be appropriate

Me too. I mean literally nothing seems to change anything. the support for the wi spa sex offender was beyind a joke

@Whatwouldscullydo

Like those american students who having gained access to the rest rooms.of their choice then decided to still complain because the rebuild necessary to accommodate mixed sex usage removed the gaps from the top and bottom of the doors am the privacy was transphobic

It's a very fast slide indeed from 'you won't even notice' and 'will never do anything to harm or distress', and makes it clear that the slightest chink in women's protections is just immediately forced as wide as possible. Frankly at this point I wonder what a male would have to do before some women were prepared to admit that possibly, yes, their intentions might be questionable and a boundary might be appropriate.

Obviously if they're winning we have to play their game, but I think it's a dangerous path to go down to accept the use of that despicable term.

This. For goodness sake do not play the game.

If you accept that label pressed upon you by this political ideology you are accepting your 'privilege' and therefore you have agreed that it is right and just that you should be subordinated and punished for it. By having lesser rights to privacy, dignity, safety, it is righteous that females suffer in order to provide social redress for people with trans identities. Hence the 'its sad but ok that more women will be assaulted etc in prisons and toilets but that's the price of trans rights'.

No. No thank you. I don't believe that females are subhuman. I will never agree that some humans matter more than others and equality is a hierarchy that some enjoy and others must accept their lower caste and suffering.

Just no. It's ridiculous.

Like those american students who having gained access to the rest rooms.of their choice then decided to still complain because the rebuild necessary to accommodate mixed sex usage removed the gaps from the top and bottom of the doors am the privacy was transphobic

If you were not to say anything, that would be validation of passing and a demonstration that the use of the facilities is problematic to no-one

Honestly I believe for some that actually not saying something is probably the worse thing.

I mean I'm pretty sure there are a some people who "want" the reaction
That's what I think this toilet /changing thing is. Now no one bats an eyelid at nakes pronouns clothing etc the need arises to push further in order to get the reaction needed to remain a victim.

Of course when you get that reaction rhe appropriate answer from management would be " look we changes your name badge, the website, provided you somewhere to change, updated the dress code, given you time off for your surgeries and check ups but that's it. You either respect the boundaries or you are out, your behaviour is no longer compatible with the work place "

I believe that this is still known as Catch22.

I think that there are a lot of people who are happy to make homophobic "jokes" when they think it's safe to do so, but that makes them knobs rather than bigots. I also think that quite a lot of people are homophobic, and it's right that they are forced to be politer than they might be naturally.

I'd try not to worry. No-one has an obligation to like you and you're unlikely to ever know whether Steve in accounts is a miserable sod, doesn't much like women apart from his wife, doesn't like you because your face reminds him of someone he knew when he was younger, hates you for the annoying way you laugh, or is a bigot or some sort of combination. In some ways if his miserable nature around you is down to bigotry you can be re-assured that you need to pay no attention whatsoever to his opinions because he is a worthless individual.

So if you were to say ‘I am a woman and I need a safe place to pee’ they’d just say ‘tough, you hateful bigot, your fears don’t mean anything to me’. That’s it, right?

Why should anyone care about another's gender identity, let alone put it into law.

OBVIOUSLY immutable biological sex which is RECORDED at birth, and sexual orientation, should be protected characteristics. Gender expression should probably be protected too, but on the other hand even this isn't straightforward, as, whilst no-one is going to get upset by a man with long hair and a lipstick, there is a very strong argument that womanface should be as unacceptable as blackface rightly is.

But gender identity I just don't get. On what basis should it be a protected characteristic, and how should that protection manifest itself?

If you are going to say that gender identity trumps sex as a protected characteristic then obviously sex ceases to be a protected characteristic, so that doesn't work. Could it be a protected characteristic so long it doesn't impinge on sex-based rights? In theory, but then again trans people have all human rights already, other than other people's sex-based rights, so with identity based rights it is either "trump sex based rights" or "identity based rights are meaningless".

I am a southerner, English, British, a citizen of the UK, european and a citizen of planet earth. I'm also an anglo-scot by blood. All these things are literally true and I have rights based on some of them. My identity is more complex - the fact that I consider myself any one of those six things at certain times means nothing. The fact that I think of myself as a southerner when talking with a friend who lives up north about the difference between opposite ends of the country is meaningless in terms of my rights, as is the fact I identify as English when watching the England football team.

What is a gender identity? How does it differ from my identity as a Wimbledon AFC fan or my identity as a lover of alternative music? Where the hell does this end?

Using logic, reason and persuasive arguments please explain why someone's gender identity should matter to anyone else?

Please do so without claiming that people should be able to self-ID into the single sex-spaces belonging to other protected groups, as that is an unacceptable, entitled, despicable demand to make.

They can be themselves at work, but everyone else has to button their lips, plaster a smile on their face, ignore their inner shriek of 'there's a man in the ladies loo' and not show any indication of what they're really feeling

What is this "being themselves anyway". Its a work place everyone's expected to just get on with their work and behave appropriately surely?

Peope are also entitled to not agree with being gay or whatever. I've worked with people who don't. And you wouldn't even really know. They mind their own business, treat people fairly and with respect regardless and it doesn't even come up.

This whole thing of pushing people, expecting them.to outwardly display " appropriate" views at the will of others who what the recognition for apparently making the workplace more inclusive/ friendly, then accusing them of making the work place hostile is bonkers.

If they aren't bullying people, are just getting on with their work then surely that's OK? Surely all this stuff is just creating the problem? A problem someone else will " fix" for a fee?

If people what ro be left alone be be who they are then leave eveeyine else alone too. Stop creating drama and problems where there are none.

They can be themselves at work, but everyone else has to button their lips, plaster a smile on their face, ignore their inner shriek of 'there's a man in the ladies loo' and not show any indication of what they're really feeling.

This is tyranny, isn't it? And it makes me wonder whether that was what people felt forced to do for the LGB population. Are the people I work with secretly homophobic but just hiding it well? I do get a vibe from some people. I've talked about it and have been told that no, of course A or B or C doesn't have an issue with me being a lesbian, they're just a bit grouchy/ don't make eye contact/ having a bad day. But I wonder...

.... although, I really want to see the genderfuck loos.

One criticism is that Nolan could have made more of the fact of the clear skew for male voices…women are scared to speak

You're right - I think people who are new to all of this won't be aware that men will not experience anything like the social media consequences as women do, nor will they have so many employers who are keen to sack them.

I was really struck by how much Ben Cohen went on and on and on about providing his non binary member of staff with toilet provision they were comfortable with but thoroughly waved away concerns of women wanting the same thing...

.... You know what, I am all for gender identity being made a protected characteristic in the equality act. Because that would include CIS gender. That would mean that cis women would be entitled to toilets they were comfortable in....