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

Labour’s statement shows the position on changing the definition. And I doubt anyone will challenge that

Moreover, let me be clear: we are proud of the Equality Act and will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it.

Their biological women where reasonable line is a sop at this point because no one has thought to ask the direct question on which spaces are included as ‘reasonable’

I must admit that I am looking forward to the election campaign and to these hard questions being asked and answered forced.

Me too. I can’t believe how Teflon this has been so far

They are simple direct questions and still no one can say what Labour actually mean in reality

I don’t think that no one has thought to ask what spaces biological women can reasonably expect. It’s difficult to pin it down on purpose. A fig leaf of reasonableness to get out of political bother and to mean different things to different people.

Labour’s aim in these sort of pronouncements is to sound reasonable and that if you try to pick apart what this means you’re a crazed loony/conspiracy theorist who sees issues where there are none. Most journalists won’t be across the distinction between biological women and legal women, the legal right to apply exceptions and the practical ability to actually try to do this when funding will be at risk/there will be rape and death threats/an adverse PR onslaught coordinated by the TRAs. Those journalists who are aware don’t want a bar of it in the main. And so the hints and half truths and obfuscations continue.

@maltravers

Not having a go at you personally AT ALL but I am becoming increasingly worried about the use of the terms "biological woman" versus "legal woman".

Jennifer Bilek commented on this recently - asking "biological people versus what exactly?"

I think we might to think about our languages, as our words to describe ourselves are getting lost.

x.com/bjportraits/status/1745445792683323403?s=46&t=PMOpAXvQcwgwlrHv64UWAA

How about 'woman' versus 'male with

It’s difficult to pin it down on purpose. A fig leaf of reasonableness to get out of political bother and to mean different things to different people.

Yes absolutely. And you can see it’s worked with some.

I was thinking of journalists when I wrote no one, I know women on here can be very clued up.

Sorry.. hit send too soon.
Maybe this does need a seperate thread though.. but I'd like to get rid of the words 'biological' and 'legal' to describe women and men with a GRC.
Which are factual, law-abiding and doesn't mean that women have to describe ourselves as 'biological'. This is exactly the same as calling ourselves AFAB

I think “legal women” is a nonsense fwiw but the law says men with a GRC are women legally 🙄 if I understand it correctly and we need words to make that distinction (hence legal and biological women) until this craziness has been resolved.

If essential to clarify, I favour 'biologically female' over 'biological woman'.

In a world where trans women also call themselves "biological females" because they are "biological" in the sense that they are a living organism, and "female" in the sense that they think of themselves as female, words mean NOTHING.

India Willoughby describes themselves as a "biological female".

I've noticed an increasing trend on YouTube for trans women to describe themselves as "female".
It is therefore no longer a descriptor of biological reality or genetics.

Words, in 2024, can mean anything you want them to mean.

In a world where trans women also call themselves "biological females" because they are "biological" in the sense that they are a living organism, and "female" in the sense that they think of themselves as female, words mean NOTHING.

Hence my use of 'biologically' not 'biological'.

Not that it would stop them making ridiculous claims, of course - but it adds an extra layer of implausibility to the argument they'd need to make to claim it.

Yes hooty. I used to post 'I thought trans people were no longer denying their sex' after Stonewall said that trans people knew what their sex was.

I have stopped posting that sentence lately. Because we are indeed back to a group of some males claiming to be female. Certainly not all trans people, but certainly enough of the self-identified influencer group.

Perhaps we should start saying “women and males who have a certificate saying they are legally recognised as a member of the opposite gender”.

And how do you propose to enforce said law?

Incidentally I just stopped at a service station where the ladies is next to where the trucks park and the gents is further away (like 3m) Its very quiet. When I went into the ladies a trucker was coming out, when I came out another one was going in. These men obviously cba to walk to get to a further away toilet.

Will a new law stop that happening? I doubt it, human behaviour being what it is

(I couldn't believe it having been on this thread, but its true)

A new law would make it very clear that no male should ever be in that space and they can be prosecuted.

It will be as effective as any other law introduced for protecting people. Should we now stop all other laws designed to protect people?

A law on its own does nothing, you need an enforcement mechanism

I think in many (even most) single sex spaces proper use of EA exemptions should be enough to protect women. Women can/do sue their employers or service providers under the act if they don't apply the exemption correctly and potentially the organisations owning or running those spaces are liable.

For many privately owned spaces women will vote with their feet/wallets and just not use the space if males are there, providing some pressure to keep males out if the companies want to stay profitable.

Public toilets are different as they are by nature open to the public. So maybe a new "toilet law" would be needed as there is no way the toilet owners control access. I really don't understand how a toilet law would work or be paid for, which is partly why I think toilets are a bad place to start this debate.

In the case of public toilets (I.e. the service station) what's the mechanism once the toilet law is in place? Do women report to the police to investigate, is it security guards/CCTV, what? Do offenders get an FPN or a criminal record if they breach the law? Do you think councils should be spending money detecting men in women's toilets (at a time when council funding means public toilets are increasingly shutting down, which disproportionately affects women and limits participation in public life).

Do you think the police should divert effort from other crimes into detecting and prosecuting men using women's toilets? The police already can't resource catching men looking at child abuse images. What do they drop to investigate and build a criminal case against the man in the ladies?

Do you think parliament should spend time debating then legislating for this? What things would you take off the legislative timetable instead?

AdamRyan that seems defeatist. I also don't believe that a law that is not enforced in practice is necessarily totally useless. Removing an unenforced law sends a message that the behaviour is societally acceptable.

Sigh.

They do it because nobody ça challenge them. How do you not get that?

Yes I agree with that. But there is no law now, so this would be a case of implementing a law you know is not enforceable (or creating enforcement, with all the consequent cost and time).

I just cannot see how it is workable and that isn't because I want fetishists in womens spaces or whatever it was I was accused of upthread.

brefugee people can challenge them. These were hairy assed men brazenly using the ladies because it was closer, they don't care.I doubt they would have done it if the services were busy but it was pretty illuminating as to men's mindset.

A law won't stop this sort of behaviour unless it's enforced. Because its more convenient to them. A bit like speeding, cameras are what stops people speeding, not the speed limit.

And yet, it would only take one or two instances of women providing evidence that a male has used a toilet for the male to be prosecuted and send the message that no males can use the female toilet.

It really isn't that hard to conceive how this would work.

The point being, that it clearly means that any male transgressing that law can be prosecuted. Will the police spend much time on this one law? Well, hopefully not as it will not end up being necessary because mature adult males will respect the law. Will it take the police away from other duties, probably not more than chasing up other crimes.

You keep trying to force this 'it has to be 100% for it to work', when the reality is it will require multiple actions over time. This is a fucking mess so no one action will probably be sufficient. So no. simply tightening up the EA is probably not going to work and will end up a dog's dinner. Hence there needs to be more than one action to work.

It is your, personal, opinion that it will not work. That is your opinion and you are quite entitled to it. But others can see how it might work so we are entitled to ours.

So the women using university toilets with signs stating that women should not challenge someone they think is in the wrong toilet can challenge men?

Really? How? Without being disciplined by their university?

A bit like speeding, cameras are what stops people speeding, not the speed limit

There were speed limits long before there were speed cameras. Most people kept to them. The social contract is a strong force.

The enforcement measures aren't the problem.

Virtually all men used to stay out of women's loos for no other reason than that that was the rule (not even a law, just a rule). If they came in, both women and other men felt able to complain - and justified in doing so - directly or to a security guard. If they did so they would be backed up by other members of the public, by venue staff, and if necessary by the police.

Now the sign often explicitly says they men are welcome. The social contract doesn't apply. Women are frightened to complain because there is no actual rule to complain about (as Hellofabore says, there may even be a rule prohibiting complaints), and because they risk facing social or even legal consequences for doing so.

So today, i phone the police and say - I was in X services on the motorway southbound and a man was coming out. Chubby, 5'7' tall, dark hair and stubble, white, wearing workmen's clothes.

Then.....?

Stop it. We have explained over and over. You're posting in bad faith now