Wtf is Alan Cummings blithering on about?

[IcakethereforeIam]

Just seems to be a stream of tripe and non sequiturs. Was he drunk? High?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12948343/Alan-Cumming-says-public-arms-Rishi-Sunak-denying-existence-trans-people.html

how do you propose stopping males using womens spaces? There is no way to do that today, if the world is how you want it we need a mechanism. What would that be?

I never understand this argument.

The mechanisms to stop domestic violence and rape, for example, are very weak. Probably far weaker than those to stop males appropriating female toilets. But we still have laws against rape and DV. No one would ever say "we don't have a mechanism to stop rape or DV so we'll just have to make them legal".

Laws aren't magic, they don't stop the thing that is illegal ever happening, they just allow prosecution after the event. The idea is that most people, knowing it's illegal, then don't do it. Some out of fear of prosecution, but most simply because laws send a strong message about what society does and does not condone, and most people, humans being social creatures, will fit in to society.

It is just another weak argument Flirts. It sits directly alongside ‘you have a gender neutral toilet in your house’ that we sometimes see as if it is a clever retort.

It is bizarre to see it rolled out on this thread but it is another inconsistency in that poster’s arguments today. Like the assertion that Cumming was in any way factually correct in stating that a Prime Minister was outrageously offensive in saying there were only two sexes - male and female.

Yes, it describes the "consent" part of policing by consent (which many people seem not to understand at all)

People consent to keep the laws, and everything runs smoothly because those who don't feel the long arm of plod feeling up their collar. Or something.

Yes I’m fine with changing the law, most people abide by it and the social contract works

And if it doesn’t there is an avenue to take

Going back to it being socially unacceptable for a bloke to go into the ladies would be a good start. Of course there's no guarantee but it allows it to be policed and for women to object. It won't 💯 stop it but anti theft laws don't 100 percent stop theft but that doesn't mean we abolish them

well said

when it comes to men in womens refuges, awards, prisons, sporting events, whatever you call it when jobs and ‘benefits ’ and seminars and stuff are offered as female only (minds blank….like the women in stem thing that was taken over by men) those things and i am sure more that i haven’t mentioned … well then those things i think would be easier to manage or ‘police’ if you prefer

not having health organisations fucking up cancer statistics would be jolly helpful, and that would be a piece of piss to go back to the status quo

and police and newspapers reporting crimes as female crimes, that would be dead easy to go back to the status quo…or ‘police’

and the bit where people report the first ‘woman’ to do anything and its a man

It sits directly alongside ‘you have a gender neutral toilet in your house’ that we sometimes see as if it is a clever retort

oh yeah that one 😀 people are stupid

Men with gender are never told that home toilets are gender neutral, or its impossible to keep men out of the womens toilets, when they want to use the ladies to avoid men.

Womens toilets are seen as antiquate and impossible for women, but a necessity and viable for men with gender.

AdamRyan · Yesterday 22:42

The status quo is some males can access toilets if they look like they've made an effort to "pass" and aren't being creepy. The GRC is irrelevant.

Hmmm not so sure that is the status quo, take Alex for example who is helping expand the bandwidth of womanhood or some guff.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant by the status quo/social contract. I think it should be socially unacceptable and that's how it should be managed.

If the government at the time want to also legislate and enforce that's fine too. I just can't see them prioritising it. Proper applications of sex based exemptions (and other rules, e.g. single sex toilet provisions in schools) so that organisations know the law and how to support women using/in those organisations is more important than new laws imo.

The mechanisms to stop domestic violence and rape, for example, are very weak. Yes they are. Almost pointless, and I have lots of thoughts on it. I don't think the current system deters rapists at all

There is no point having a law if its not enforced. So for those that want a law, how would you enforce it? Do women need to report the men, then there is an investigation? Do you use CCTV/security guards?

I think the only workable solution is a social contract where women can tell men to GTFO. When self-ID was being pushed, that would be illegal and women could be criminalised for doing it. To me, that's the bit that needs stopped.

Great!! So how do we get the social contract for toilets reinstated now and secure it for the future? I think reinstating the social contract is a great start.

However, that will take years and likely take court cases. A generation of girls have now been taught to allow male people into single sex spaces. It will only be a start to get a social contract back into place.

Perhaps it will require a specific mention in the Equality Act? Or do we now need a specific law? Because it will take years to get the social contract to be back in place if we can even do it.

Of course males will use the law as they want. There’s no point in making it legal and expecting a different outcome.

There’s no requirement to show a GRC or have surgery. Are pp arguing these should be a requirement?

Because it won’t happen.

Intersex conditions arent that rare, it's just not talked about. It's about as common as having red hair, so a minority but not shockingly rare.

It will take a change in the law.

It’s unrealistic to think otherwise.

I am sorry to say that that is untrue. You have just repeated something that I believe may have started with Fausto-Sterling who if she didn’t come up with that false factoid, has certainly publicised it.

The number you talk about include people who have medical conditions that are in no way ambiguous for their sex. For instance, the number you quoted includes males with the opening of their urethra not in the usual place. Their urethra may open half way down their penis. They are in no way ‘intersex’, but they do have a condition where their development of their sex organs.

I agree Eastern. It will require a law change. It should probably be included in the EA specifically. And the EA is being interpreted in different ways as it stands and will require tightening.

That will require a great deal of political support from more than the party in power at the moment. It will require cross party majority acceptance. Which requires definitions to be clarified.

What would be very good would be to have all the reasons that the current government has not done this out and clear so it makes next steps clear. So the process can be started.

Also, natural red hair isnt equally distribution across the world. We see more red heads in the UK than in china, for example.

So the idea that just as many people have dsd as we see people with red hair is misleading. Also, the number of red head appear greater because people cheat and dye their hair red.

Perhaps this will help provide you with a starting point on understanding why you have stated a falsehood.

https://www.realityslaststand.com/p/intersex-is-not-as-common-as-red

Yes to EA. My take atm is it takes a very committed and motivated person to lead it and up until very recently the public pressure hasn’t been strong enough

It took an Isla Bryson moment and someone like KB ready to take it on

There’s still many who align with TRAs over women. I don’t know what it’ll take for that to change

All I can do is encourage where people are pro women and hope that support strengthens their approach

It’s tough and slow, and really who else in the western world who has adopted this ideology have shown change?

Not to say the U.K. can’t, we can. But it’s a tough one

I would love to see what reports have been generated by different government ministers around how the EA can be tightened either with guidance or with actual law changes.

And who in the Labour Party will take up any process that is started? I cannot see that Rosie or Tonia would get the ministerial roles at this point.

DSDs account for only 0.018% of the population. They are incredibly rare, and I'm talking about true DSDs and not the ones that the TRA want included under the umbrella to artificially inflate the figures.

Things like polycystic ovarian syndrome are NOT DSDs like the TRA want (which then allows people to think that they are as common as having red hair. They're not).

Inflating the figures is just another way for the TRA to blur the lines of sex and eventually claim that no-one REALLY knows what a man or a woman is anyway, doncha' know?

That's approximately 180 people per MILLION people on the planet by the way.

I looked that up. The book dates back to 2012. One of the Amazon reviews describes it as “a topic rarely covered in mainstream media”.

true Hooty and as has already been said on the thread, not one person in history has produced both sperm and ova. Every person can be categorised as male or female. And people with DSDs should never have been utilised to support gender identity ideology.

DSDs aren’t not as common as red hair.

People with DSDs are either male or female.

People who say they’re trans or non-binary do not have DSDs.

People who say they’re trans or non-binary are also male or female and that remains constant throughout their lives.

I don’t know how many times these things have to be said before they sink in.