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!

It’s only “obvious” to those who don’t understand or accept transness.

The SC did not rule as they did because it’s “obvious that trans women are men”. They ruled as they did as they were tasked with interpreting the law in a manner that is logical, consistent (with the text as it is written) and reflects the intentions of parliament at the time. It was their (not per se unreasonable) opinion that parliament intended to guarantee protections for people based on birth sex, as well as gender reassignment .

Because its quicker than typing "The SC has confirmed that people born male are not to be considered to be women in situations where sex matters." Situations where sex matters are the only important ones when it comes down to it, so if its been confirmed TW are not considered women in these situations, in practical terms it means the same thing as confirming they are not women. TRAs are saying this themselves, so surely this is one area on which we agree?

'Understanding or accepting transness' does not involve believing men can change sex.

So are you saying that if you think/ consider/ treat someone as if they were x….
It actually makes / confirms them as being x….?

🤔😏

I take my hat off to the posters on this thread. Tandora & their ilk are running head first down a one way street. They have their fingers in their ears & think if they just blah, blah, blah the cliched nonsense spewed out over the last few years they’ll ‘win.’

The SC ruling, exposure of Stonewall, Mermaids, WPATH, GIDS at the Tavistock. Multiple cases of sudden onset ‘oh god I’ve been convicted, I’m a woman!’. Corporate sponsorship of Pride collapsing. The rise of law suits, detransitioners, I could go on …

The gigs up. They had a good run, but the fellas in frocks will need to crawl back into their bedrooms. Meanwhile we adults can attempt to re establish safeguarding & support vulnerable children & young adults who’ve been sold a lie & harmed.

‘But, but look at this research’ 🤣🤣

the fellas in frocks will need to crawl back into their bedrooms. Meanwhile we adults….

Any one with half a sense of decency can see these sorts of statements for what they are.

Goodness, why would that be “reasonable”, trans women are women in all senses, no?

I agree @NeverOneBiscuit the gig is indeed up.

“Trans women are women” is a rhetorical slogan - semantics.

It is my position, and has always been my position, that trans people are who they say they are. They know their reality, and their reality is real, valid, material, acceptable, legitimate, and a fundamental/ core part of their humanity.

However, one thing that differentiates trans women from women who are not trans, is sex observed/ registered at birth. It’s ok to recognise this difference, and in fact, may be important in some circumstances that we do. This is no different from other differences between women that it’s sometimes important to recognise, such as disability, ethnicity, age, etc. just as there are separate provisions in the EA for these axes of difference / diversity, it’s not unreasonable, per se, to suggest that there should be a separate provision in the EA that recognises “birth sex” as an axis of difference/ diversity,

It is my position, and has always been my position, that trans people are who they say they are. They know their reality, and their reality is real, valid, material, acceptable, legitimate, and a fundamental/ core part of their humanity.

So schizophrenic men who they are the second coming of Jesus are Jesus, then?

A delusion is not reality. And no, women do not have to take a delusional male at their word!! Your position that men 'are who they say they are' is extremely DANGEROUS, and disregards stranger danger, safeguarding, and basic common sense.

So single sex spaces are important to the rights of biological female people? We are making progress!

trans people are not schizophrenic.

It is real, valid, material, legitimate to be trans- it’s a minority axis of human diversity, neither right nor wrong, just is- and with the right support in place, trans people can live full, healthy, happy lives.

I'm not sure I fully understand? I'm saying that the SC has confirmed that TW are to be treated in accordance with their birth sex, as male/men in situations where sex matters. I'm not saying this is what makes TW men, as I think they're men by virtue of their biology.
Had the judgement gone the other way and stated that TW should be treated as women in situations where sex matters, I don't think this would turn them into women. I think it would have been a concession that said some men can be treated as if they were women.
Is that what you were asking me?

'Trans' is something not based in tangible reality. Gender Dysphoria is a mental illness. All that aside, no one should ever take any male 'at their word'. Ever.

Why do you insist on taking what someone says and completely rewriting it to fit your own narrative?

A bit like you like to do with the SC judgement eh?

It’s very manipulative.

Manipulative is telling women and children we should automatically believe whatever males tell us... In fact, it's the predator's playbook.

You repeatedly keep making the statement :

“the SC has confirmed that trans women are men”.

You’ve then justified this by arguing that treating them as if they are men, confirms that they are in fact men and therefore there’s no need to take the time to make this distinction- as it’s not meaningful according to you. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Just believe a male they said, no matter that centuries show why males should never be believed without proof, and why we teach children stranger danger to not believe the male in the van outside your school that says he's your mum's friend and he's here to pick you up;

No, I haven't repeatedly said the SC court has confirmed that TW are men. I phrased it that way once.
What I've repeatedly said is that the SC has confirmed that TW are to be treated as men in situations where sex matters. You appear to be minimising that as 'just one law' while I'm saying, it's pretty fundamental.
Because if TW are to be treated as men where sex matters, this is tantamount to saying they should be treated as men per se. Because if they are only treated as women when sex doesn't matter, that's not treating them as women in any meaningful way, is it? Its basically saying you can call yourself what you like and we'll go along with it socially, but when it comes to the things that matter, you're in with the men.
I then don't think its too much of a reach to extrapolate from this that the SC does not consider TWAW. Because if it did, what would be the justification for saying that they should be treated as men?

Tandora, you’ve already cost me one irony meter this week, I’m going to send you a bill next time.

Tandora, you’ve already cost me one irony meter this week, I’m going to send you a bill next time.

Also, am I to infer that you don’t consider single sex spaces important for women under the EA 2010? Luckily the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

I’m not minimising the law. I was just objecting to the statement “the SC court has confirmed that TW are men”.
because it is false.

It is my position, and has always been my position, that trans people are who they say they are. They know their reality, and their reality is real, valid, material, acceptable, legitimate, and a fundamental/ core part of their humanity.
However, one thing that differentiates trans women from women who are not trans, is sex observed/ registered at birth.

It is not the observation at birth that makes women different to men who identify as women it is the consequences of that observation i.e. growing up in a male or female body and the physical and social differences between males and females. It's not an observation like ohh she's got grandads chin, it's has consequences.

A couple of things involving 'official' paperwork were done in the first few weeks of my life. One was the registration of my birth with the material fact that I am female the other was my CofE Christening. One of these has had life long impact, the other I chose to disregard at a fairly young age. I couldn't disregard my sex even if I wanted to because it is coded into every cell of my body.

Oh by the way @Tandora still waiting for your view on whether 'good' women deserve single sex spaces. I bet you thought I'd given up didn't you?

I agree too. Even my very liberal left wing friend frowns at it all now.