About Gender neutral loo

[paulhollywoodshairgel]

I was in a museum today and my daughter (15) left me to go to the loo. She then waved me over.. she said to me.. I’d rather not use the gender neutral loo. I said that’s fine and sent her down a level to the ladies. A woman the approached me and preceded to tell me off for not encouraging my daughter to use the GN loo. How she has a trans child and how are they ever going to feel accepted with people like me around. I’m ND and I always second guess myself 10000 times a day. I wasn’t in the wrong was I?? I just said ok go and use the other separate loo. Surely my child can pee wherever she feels comfortable??!! I hate conflict so I just said ok and walked off!

Yes. AND...THE...RIGHTS.....OF....THE....FEMALE....SEX....IN....LAW MATTERS!

Yes I agree on that:

Courts do rule on what sex a person is. The leading case re determining a persons sex is Corbett vs Corbett 1971

Tandora: in respect of my friend & their trans child policing other peoples language. The point you made - no, you’re wrong.

We were told what we were to say, both to their face or in reference to them in their absence. That’s a no from me, I’ll use my own words.

Also tantruming & demanding their mother corrects others, including elderly relatives & friends seeing them for the first time in years. Seeing them when they looked identical to how they’d always looked, but the dictat had gone out that they must use opposite sex pronouns.

And there was NO tolerance for other views or preferences.

Anyway, I see your quote that trans women are not men. I’m out, you can’t argue with insanity.

Hopefully now people on this thread can see why the interrupting unicorn image was so good.

😎

Maybe we’ll resurrect the unicorn on September 1st
Be lovely if there was a Unicorn outside the tribunal. Wish I wasn’t so far south I love dressing up 🥸

You did nothing wrong. The woman who berated you was rude and unkind.

That one act is pretty important though, isn't it? Because it's the basis upon which we can treat individuals differently based on whether they are men or women. It's that one act that allows providers to make their offer, be it toilets, services or opportunities (with justification) to women or men, legally excluding people who are not women or men.
In practical terms it means TW can be excluded from services for women, and that their 'womanhood' is now restricted to 'presenting as women' and being 'treated as women' only as far as sex doesn't matter in that context. So while it doesn't explicitly say TW are men, it has clarified that TW are not women when considering anything where it matters if a person is a man or woman.

Yes that law is important- I agree. But it’s also important that people actually understand the judgement. It’s completely wild how it’s been widely interpreted.

We were told what we were to say, both to their face or in reference to them in their absence. That’s a no from me, I’ll use my own words.

err yes that universal principle of basic human decency where you address people and refer to them in language that is respectful to the person.

The judgment means that under the Equality Act all “trans women”, including those with gender recognition certificates are to be considered men with relation to the single sex exceptions, and heterosexual men who identify as women, rather than same sex attracted women. It’s really quite specific on this point. Why did they reach this surprising conclusion? I’ll let you work it out.

Compelled language over pronouns is the thin end of the wedge that leads to situations where victims of rape are compelled to use "she" and "her" when describing their rapist in court.

This is something that has actually happened, it's not a worse case hypothetical scenario.

Compelling people to use wrong sex pronouns is wrong.

https://womensliberationfront.org/news/da-compelled-to-call-alleged-male-rapist-she/her

You've already had this explained to you; It is NOT respectful to gaslight women to call men women, any more than it is
respectful to gaslight African Americans to call Rachel Dolezal a black woman.

It shows a lack of human decency to gaslit raped and oppressed women to call a male with a sexual fetish 'her'. We, as the oppressed sex say NO to cosplaying in a male's fetish.

It is human decency and respectful for the male to not engage in cultural appropriation and tell rape survivors like me to call a male 'her'. Guess what, we have rights, this is not the 1940s, and women say NO!!.

The judgement means that when interpreting provisions related to the protected characteristic of “sex” in the EA - the word “sex” refers to a person’s sex “at birth”.

They reached this conclusion- which is not the least surprising- based on their reasoning about what parliament intended when the act was written. It was the view of the court - which actually isn’t unreasonable - that parliament intended that there should be circumstances where individuals should be afforded special protections based on “birth sex”.
Meanwhile, the Act also protects trans people from discrimination due to gender reassignment.
Further, the judgement also acknowledges circumstances where gender reassignment might have an impact on how protections related to sex apply to individuals in practice .

What the judgement does not do is decide that trans women are in fact men in science, medicine or in law.

It’s a basic human principle to address people in language that is respectful to that person.

You wouldn’t call black people a racial slur would you? Even if you really really believed that was the appropriate descriptive word- say you grew up being taught that. People used to refer to non white people as “coloured”, that’s considered offensive now. Only a complete arsehole would insist on calling someone that, despite being told it was demeaning and hurtful to the person.

I think people on both sides of the debate have interpreted its core implication correctly, ie, that TW are not women in circumstances where sex matters. Which is why one side is satisfied and the other staging protests.
All that remains now to argue about are in what situations does sex matter. So we move from the former argument of TWAW so should be able to use women's facilities to, this or that facility doesn't need to be exclusively for women, so TW (and other male people to avoid discrimination) should be allowed to use it.
Which will not be particularly satisfactory for either side because it removes protections from women without validating TW as women.

It is a basic human principle to not GASLIGHT rape survivors to call the oppressor sex class a woman.

That is not 'respectful' to that female.

How many times do we have to go over this?

You wouldn't INSIST on an African American calling Rachel Dolezal an African American, would you? Only a complete arsehole would insist on African Americans calling Rachel Dolezal an African American, despite being told it was demeaning and hurtful to African Americans. Only a maggot would be so selfish, disrespectful and rude to African Americans (and women).

And why do you only care about women being respectful to the male? You don't care about males being respectful to women? What about males being respectful to FEMALES? Doesn't that count?

Which will not be particularly satisfactory for either side because it removes protections from women without validating TW as women.

I agree this won’t really benefit anyone.

It’s a basic principle of common human decency to address people in language that is respectful to that person.

Obviously if someone has raped you, you really don’t need to worry about affording them “common decency” do you?

But as for any other non-criminal person who has done you no harm?- yes the basic principles of common decency apply when you converse with them.

What @ThatBlackCat said!

And stop comparing correctly sexing men with racism ffs! They are not remotely comparable!

Racism is an actual problem that negatively effects so many people, force teaming an actual issue like racism with correctly sexing men is another example of TRA appropriation.

Sex is a biological fact, calling men men is not the same as using a racial slur!

Where you find the brass balls to compare the two I'll never know.

I’m not sure why you’re implying I said anything different. “Trans women” are men under the protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation. That’s what the judgment said, quite specifically. And even the Scottish government’s barrister agreed that was the case in court for most “trans women”. The sole sticking point was the possession of a gender recognition certificate. Which the court found wasn’t relevant to their sex under the EA protected characteristics of sex and sexual orientation.

For the fifth time, It’s a basic principle of common human decency to not gaslight the oppressed sex class to use language that is disrespectful to that oppressed sex class.

It’s a basic principle of common human decency to not ask African Americans to call Rachel Dolezal an African American (not surprised you ignore this point).
And it’s a basic principle of common human decency to not ask females, the oppressed sex class, to call their oppressors women. That is not respectful to the oppressed sex class. It's hateful, disrespectful and lacks any common human decency.

It’s not just that trans identified males are “not women”, they are men. In equality law and in reality.

Transphobia is very comparable to racism. Both are rooted in fear, prejudice, anger, misunderstanding , dehumanisation of people who look / appear/ behave in ways that are different to you.