Please help! Gender not sex on a school 'protected characteristics' poster, just spoken to the Head!

Pigeon chess

I’ve no idea what your point is

You seem uncertain about whether you favour self-ID or psychological evaluation.

That there isn't going to be any psychological evaluation involved in a "transition" in Scotland, do keep up.

obviously the assessment criteria would not be the same. But the principle is.

I’ve no idea what your point is

It's categorically different, because women have statistically different risk profile to other women than male people do.

Psychological evaluation- same as pre transition.

Um, do you recall saying this a few pages back?

Go Scotland! England next!

Psychological evaluation- same as pre transition.

not infallible I know (I’m sure you have a few bits of anecdotal evidence :) ) , but no different really from evaluating how much of a threat a cis female prisoner might be to others in terms of violence, in deciding what wing to put her in.

There's no point arguing with this type of poster in good faith. They don't care about reason or your feelings.

It's just low rent goadiness. There's nothing of substance to this person's efforts. They're just amusing themselves winding up women.

Indeed

yes, the greater good is served by a tiny increase in risk to cis women of a very small number of trans women sharing some spaces with them

and there we have it

According to ELO, it’s worth sacrificing the rights, safety and dignity of female people for the greater good of male people.

Male supremacism writ large.

We accept a level of risk and ‘collateral damage’ in almost all areas of legislation - from speed limits to health and safety and so
on. Zero risk is hardly ever perused as an outcome.

The main difference is that in this case we can trivially achieve it. The risk of pregnancy in particular can be trivially reduced to zero.

Why? If it’s not for safety, why do women need to pander to this to our own discomfort?

ELO, let's say we make your thoughts policy. How would you write the legislation so that it allowed genuine transsexuals (your words) to access the female prison estate but prevented predatory men from doing so?

I mean, we all know how misogynistic the trans rights agenda is, but thanks so much for the live demo.

It does, because your entire "happiness v harm" justification just went out of the window. It's just then about feelings. Why should male feelings trump female feelings? That's disgustingly sexist.

But they are psychologically women so it’s humane to put them in women’s prisons

psychologically women? What is this nonsense?! How is being psychologically a woman measured? How can you prove this claim?

if that is true it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still accommodate m2f transsexuals in women’s spaces.

A minuscule number of assaults have been committed on MTF trans people in male only spaces.

This response is a lazy dog whistle.

We accept a level of risk and ‘collateral damage’ in almost all areas of legislation - from speed limits to health and safety and so
on. Zero risk is hardly ever perused as an outcome.

a minuscule number of rapes, assaults and so on have been committed by transsexuals in female spaces.

yes, the greater good is served by a tiny increase in risk to cis women of a very small number of trans women sharing some spaces with them

I don't think it makes the lives of vulnerable children questioning their gender identity and feeling uncomfortable with their sex better to lie to them and to tell them that others should lie to them.

I know a few such children - every single one had mental health issues before they suddenly found out about gender. Not a single one seems happier since they 'came out' as non-binary or transgender, in fact I would say the opposite is true. They thought it would resolve everything but it hasn't.

I think it makes their lives worse, often confuses them (gender is not synonymous with sex, you can't change sex) and could lead to them making decisions to take puberty blockers and cross sex hormones which could make them as an adult sterile, unable to orgasm and in lifelong pain. I think if adults are going to argue children can consent to these drugs, they need to be given very, very clear information about the differences between gender and sex and particularly about medical intervention.

I think children should have age-appropriate but correct facts about sexual reproduction and yes, also the political / philosophical belief of gender ideology, presenting both sides.

I think safeguarding children is important. They should be protected from the emotional abuse of being forced to use wrong-sex pronouns against what they believe and normal usage and the safeguarding risk of telling children they cannot trust and dare not speak what their eyes and ears are telling them. I think this is particularly awful for SEND children.

However, it is apparently important to ignore Susan's feelings or safety for the greater good. I'm sure this will be of some comfort to her.

Males, especially really do not grasp this.

How many female victims is an acceptable number to you ELO in pursuit of male people’s happiness?

How much distress caused to women in prison by the presence of (often aggressive) male prisoners, even if those women aren’t themselves victims of sexual assault by those males, is acceptable to you?

Just how much collateral damage do you think we female people should sustain for the benefit of male people? Just wondering if you can quantify exactly how dispensable you think female people are.