Good Law Project to report Sex Matters over 'deviant' remark

Did that make sense in your head? Can you clarify? Why are you so determined to allow men into female spaces?

that a generalised vague assertions like 'male violence' doesn't necessarily apply in every context.

Very few feminists would argue that all men are a risk to women, and in the vast majority of situations sex discrimination is unlawful.

When it is lawful it has to meet specific criteria, but if you allow some men to use a facility or service, then you are accepting that the criteria don't apply and the faculty should be mixed sex.

What about a transwoman is a man. A man is a person who represents the predator class. What about trans women do threaten women?

There are more women on this very board who have complained about men in women's spaces than translucent is claiming. They are a propaganda machine for transactivism.

edited to add that you've got it arse about face. The social reorganisation came from Stonewall.. What was their 'evidence' that men should be given access to vulnerable women??

honestly, transactivism is so stupid

The TAs are losing. Long term the situation is bleak.

Every time GLP does something daft like this and lose another case the biology knowers make gains.

They are an utter train wreck. As much I am loving Sarah Phillimore taking on Joylon the loss of his incompetence for our side will be tragic.

We know that councils and other authorities steadfastly refuse to entertain complaints let alone write them down in a book when it comes to men in womens spaces. So using 'there have been no complaints' as a measure of how big the issue is, is utterly nonsensical.

The basic point being made that you're spectacularly missing (already clarified) was according to materialist logic an 'ought' (social reorganisation) requires a relevant 'is' (evidence) that a generalised vague assertions like 'male violence' doesn't necessarily apply in every context. To wit, you have no 'is' in every setting which is an example of the ought is problem with gender critical ideology.

You really are quite focused on toilets.

Again, there is no way to judge somebody else's gender identity. If you think toilets should be mixed sex, you should certainly campaign for that.

Does it occur to you that women need rights for reasons that extend beyond toilets? That they lose those rights if 'woman' is not clearly defined in law?

Trans scientist - oh no your type are fine. You feel your science 🧬 so that’s ok.

@nicepotoftea well the problem with your rational thinking is that you are committing a literal violence hate crime & thought deviant behaviour.

My inner feelings and badly applied make up are material evidence of my transition from someone without badly applied evidence. You see total facts.

You’re another one of those biological fundamentalist freaks. 🤯😂

If its material evidence that justifies how society should be organised then you kind of need it that often irrelevant oversimplifications don't necessarily qualify as.

To use your toilet example, your problem is that because, unlike sex, 'trans' is now a completely subjective concept (largely a consequence of campaigning by organisations like Stonewall after 2010) you can only make a practical argument for single sex or mixed sex toilets.

You talk about material evidence but if anyone can use any toilet, then we can only consider whether men are a danger to women and we do have evidence that mixed sex facilities are more dangerous for women.

As women know, you can't defend the rights of people you can't define.

I know. And guess what…. Im not even a scientist! The audacity 🤣🤣🤣

Well we’d expect to see your type on the FWR boards. So fixated on reality and science. 🧬

I’m a gravity existentialist.

I'm so glad you wrote this post, Heggettypeg. I was just trying to construct a similar reply in my head, but you have put it so well. Yes it is, as @Baileyonice says, plausible to argue that "human rights, dignity and legal protections are matters of social negotiation and value—not objective deductions from the natural world". But that does not remotely entail that they are free-floating constructions with no anchorage in reality.
Bailey tries to make the "objective deduction" look implausible by locating it in the fundamental origin of rights. In fact, if rights are, as Bailey pictures them, a matter of 'social negotiation and value', the 'objective deductions' will be made in that arena of 'social negotiation' but will relate to material realities - such as needs, the material realities that shape those needs, and the material barriers to the realisation of needs.

The is/ought distinction just means that is and ought are categorically different. It doesn't mean that the latter doesn't supervene on the former (in a manner in which it is the business of moral philosophy to articulate). If it did, it would be hard to articulate the actual significance of rights for material beings.

If you are going to massively misrepresent the is/ought distinction in such an undergraduate manner, it is probably better not to preface your remarks with "may I suggest a rudimentary course in philosophy 101".

I'm guessing that courses in "transgender and queer theory" routinely abuse philosophy in this way, preferring to show the fly the way into the fly bottle, rather than out of it.

An example of a non trans man using women’s clothing in an extreme example of deviation from societal standards.

(Trigger warning CSA)

https://share.google/s5MX1MK6b50g5eCQM

I think the reorganisation of resources resulted in complaints originally, but the complainants were dismissed as transphobic and lost their jobs. I know I wanted to complain but was intimidated by a corporate culture of persecution and unfortunately I needed to work and earn money. Protesting and complaining was not an option for most women. I’m very surprised you aren’t aware of that, it’s well documented and widely known. You probably aren’t interested in the viewpoints of people who are different to you, or what their experiences might be, but it can be valuable to understand all the issues.

Its so odd that Jolyon & the other non-biological fundamentalist on here heard men with deviant behaviours and automatically linked it to transwomen / trans identified man.

That’s assumption is their assumption. Challenging behaviour that deviates from the norm / deviant behaviour is actually what most of us do - in work, in social settings, in our children.

On the plain reading there are many men - excluding trans men - who are deviant in their behaviours.

• Deviate from the norm — To behave or think differently from what is standard or expected.
• Don’t deviate — A direct instruction to stay on track (e.g., “Stick to the agenda and don’t deviate.”).
• Deviate significantly — Often used in technical, scientific, or regulatory contexts
• Deviant art — Unconventional or provocative artwork (also the name of the popular website DeviantArt).
• Moral deviant — Someone who breaks moral or ethical conventions.
• Deviation from the mean/standard (statistics).
• Statistical deviation.
• Deviant from the group or group deviant.

Any reading of “deviant” tends to label people or behaviors as non-conforming.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

Thank you for my morning laugh today.

Biological essentialists. 😂😆😭😂😆😭

I’m a breathing essentialist too. How very fundamentalist of me.

They were for those jurisdictions mentioned in the link for 16 million people but nary a whisper.

It's related directly to the context of material evidence discussed upthread specific to the demographic in question being excluded. Trans women.

You would have thought issues that are supposedly warranting the total reorganisation of social resources might register in complaints to local authorities or grass roots activism or even widespread protests as they often do. But alas no such evidence exists. Only a particularly loud small cohort of women who are a usefulr political cudgel that's been astro turfed by powerful right wing links in the media.

Councils are not responsible for many toilets anymore. Years of misuse, subsequent funding issues and the fact they are not legally obliged to provide toilet provision means that this exercise was always going to be futile.

Why would the council log a complaint about a man being in the women’s toilets at a pub? Or a workplace? What would they log it under? Why would anyone think to ring up the council - what would that achieve?

The only thing the very time consuming report shows is that there is no system in place for people to collate what’s going on in toilets.

Whereas biology, reality of crime data, coroners reports and common sense dictate the best toilet design is in a single sex environment.

Hmm, not really related to male violence that you are discussing though. And who complains to the council? You’d be better off finding out who complains to their friends.

At TransLucent, we have a strict policy of “truth, clarity and justice” – our mission is not to erode womens rights

🤣

Police reporting isn't the only method of tracking. Complaints to local authorities about trans women in public toilets in the UK is virtually non existent.

https://translucent.org.uk/how-many-complaints-about-trans-women-using-toilets/