to think this is sexual harassment not "an equal opportunities issue"?

[SwissWank]

If I am expecting a vulva and in a private room am met with a penis...

I don't have to touch your penis, surely?

www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/trans-woman-brazilian-wax?utm_term=.wn9yL7dKK#.aoLOxVqZZ

Tell her chromosomes that

That's your opinion, Newspaper. Not everyone's.

But she is still a she.

No, he has decided to call himself a she.

Sorry but as long as 'she' still has cock and balls then 'she' is biologically a 'he'.

And even if 'she' has said cock and balls removed then 'she' will be trans. Not a woman, a trans woman.

A couple of years ago I was all wide eyed and 'we'll, let them crack on, who are they harming'. Now I see that while the vast majority are peaceful and just getting on quietly with their lives the activists are hell bent on taking away women's hard earned rights and women only spaces. Excuse me for not agreeing with them on that.

Yes I think she should suffer legal consequences as she flashed that poor beautician. But she is still a she.

That's an interesting point. Because the law has not kept up with this apparent change in the way in which the words traditionally associated with biological sex are used. Indecent exposure, for instance, refers to "his" genitals. Similarly, Rape can only be committed by a "male". The legislation refers to "his" and "he".

So a woman, with a penis, cannot legally commit indecent exposure, or rape, as the law stands. Im not sure if it's ever been tested in law, yet, but I'm sure it will be, sooner or later.

As a society, we seem to be trying to maintain a balancing act between meeting the demands of the trans-lobby, while at the same time, resisting the need to debate the issue openly in order to ensure legislation reflects social changes.
Unfortunately, that leaves some, mainly biological women, at great risk.

Because the law has not kept up with this apparent change in the way in which the words traditionally associated with biological sex are used. Indecent exposure, for instance, refers to "his" genitals. Similarly, Rape can only be committed by a "male". The legislation refers to "his" and "he".

So a woman, with a penis, cannot legally commit indecent exposure, or rape, as the law stands. Im not sure if it's ever been tested in law, yet, but I'm sure it will be, sooner or later

I don't know which jurisdiction you are referring to. In Scotland "rape" is penetration by a "penis".

"Sexual exposure" is exposing genitals for the purposes of sexual gratification or to cause humiliation or offence.

It is completely irrelevant what sex, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation the owner of the penis or genitals is.

From The Sexual Offences (Scotland)Act 2009
^If a person (“A”), with A's penis—
(a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and^
(b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of rape

Sexual exposure
^(1)If a person (“A”)—
(a)without another person (“B”) consenting, and^
(b)without any reasonable belief that B consents,intentionally and for a purpose mentioned in subsection (2), exposes A's genitals in a sexual manner to B with the intention that B will see them, then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of sexual exposure.
^(2)The purposes are—
^(a)obtaining sexual gratification,
(b)humiliating, distressing or alarming B.^

I see Karen goes under more than one name.
rabelais.com.au/2015/05/la-trobe-university-gender-diverse-and-intersex-survey/

With a difference in what is presented.

I don't know which jurisdiction you are referring to.

Apologies, I should have been clearer. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (which I believe is law in England and Wales). Both clearly refer to "he", "his" etc, in contrast with other elements of the Act which refer to "they" or "person".

I've just looked at the English act, The Sexual Offences Act 2003. It does not mirror the Scottish legislation and refers to his penis and his genitals. It's badly drafted so far as exposure. Even before the trans issues it should have been drafted to include females deliberately exposing themselves.

X post TimeFor

The Scottish parliamentary draftspeople come in for a lot of flak but it would seem they did a neat and prescient piece of work in 2009.

Having read this person's facebook page, I'm now more than ever convinced that this was a deliberate set up.

it would seem they did a neat and prescient piece of work in 2009.

They did indeed.

My understand of the law is that as it stands currently, a gender reassignment certificate would be required in order for someone defined as male to be excluded from prosecution under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 due to their gender.

In other words, Karen (and trans-women like her) are still legally male, and therefore male pronouns are applicable. If (or when) self-declared gender is legally accepted, then the sexual offences act must change.

But she is still a she.

How? What makes her a 'she'? This is the fundamental point in the whole trans argument that I've never actually seen an explanation for. Not from anyone. I know what makes me female - my biology. The rest (my beliefs, personality and experiences) is eithera consequence of my biology or my uniqueness as a human being. I have no idea what would ever make a male a female

I asked that and was deleted.

This is the fundamental point in the whole trans argument that I've never actually seen an explanation for.

Until there is a "test" I don't think there can be an explanation. Going back to my colour blindness analogy, if the person who is colour blind says "I see red colours as green" then society has to take their word for that. It's not possible to see what they see. And, TBH, we don't know if my perception of red is the same as anyone else's anyway.

So, in the case of men who "feel" like a woman - they can't explain it any more than a colour blind person can explain how their sight is different.

I fear, however, that rather than work to develop a test and prove the lady-brain theory, trans-activists will resist any such attempts.

But the lady brain theory disproves itself time. If you want to prove that there is such a thing as a "female brain" then you would really have to prove that everyone that is actually female has such a brain and nobody who isn't female doesn't. If you say you've found evidence for a female brain but that a subset of the male population have such a brain then it clearly isn't a female brain. On what basis can you call it female? If you were to find that transwomen and ciswomen have some common brain structure it would be fascinating and interesting but it wouldn't make the male people female because male and female are distinctions of reproductive capacity. If the males with the "female brain" still produced sperm, had penises, scrotums, XY chromosomes they would still be male.

So Rachel Dolezal IS black Time? She thinks she is, she says that she is, so she must be believed.

Also we do know a LOT about brains, they are not an undiscovered country. There are types of brains that are alike but if you were grouping brains then it would not be by sex.

Only if you are using the accepted definition of the word "female" wanting. If the words female/woman/girl are no longer associated with gentialia and genetics, and instead associated with brain-structure (assuming that it can be proven that there are two or more distinct brain "types") then it would be consistent to have people with various combinations of brain/genitals - which is where lady-penises originate.

I'm not, for one moment, suggesting that I buy into the "lady-brain" theory, btw. As it stands, I think the current trans-agenda poses a significant risk to people born with vulvas. But, I'm not arrogant enough to state that lady-brain won't be proven in the future.
Once, it was considered ludicrous to believe that the earth was a sphere.

So Rachel Dolezal IS black Time? She thinks she is, she says that she is, so she must be believed

It depends on whether you accept her definition of "black".

Like trans-activists, RD redefined the nature of what she was identifying as, in order for it to accommodate her.

A bit like me saying I'm a cat. But I'm the type of cat which has arms and legs.

hermione I agree with you. However, if people like us , who want to stick with the current/former meaning of the words "woman", "black", or "cat" become the minority, then the meaning of the words will change.

Arguably, it's how language evolves.

I don't like it, I think it puts people born with vulvas at significant risk - but I'm reluctantly accepting that the world probably has to learn this lesson the hard way. It's shit.

They should waxed the peen and waxed the skin off too then shrugged n said well you wanted it doing !

But then there would need to be another word for biological woman. As we are a distinct class.