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

OR Alan Cumming was talking about culture wars and using the trans debate as an example. He was using the reduction of the argument to "trans kids and bathrooms" as an example.

My view. Not yours. But also not one of the two options you've unilaterally decided are the "either/or"

No this has changed, April is out of date

They since revised to we will defend the act

Presumably due to this https://labourlist.org/2023/04/lgbt-labour-urges-members-to-lobby-party-to-oppose-equality-act-change/?amp

It’s why your more recent statement on ‘reasonable’ access does not mention the definition changing.

Legally, when no EA exemption applies..and he's correct because that is the actual law.

Strangely for a lawyer he seems to think legal definitions are important.

He also is clear there is a biological difference, but for some reason you like to pretend that bit hasn't happened.

And in any case he's not in power. The Conservatives could easily change the EA definition if they wanted to, Labour would back them. They haven't. The only conclusion is they don't want to.

I didn’t “project” what you actually wrote, Adam.

I directly quoted what you actually wrote. Including the highly illuminating emoji.

Hmm. Can you link the revision or is that lobbying article from an LGBT+ group your only source?

there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access.

This is not the same as changing the definition

It is a sop to appease.

Can anyone list which spaces are included yet?

Here you go loobi

Then I'd like organisations to apply proper sex based exemptions where required (prisons, sports, women's shelters, group counselling, medicine, changing rooms)

Toilets are behind those things on my list of priorities, and also very far behind a long list of other things I'd like our government to be doing for women.

Schools legally have to provide single sex toilets and thanks to feminists, are being forced to do so.

Toilets in general are lower risk environments than single sex changing rooms where people are naked in a shared space.

People who focus on toilets are neglecting areas of greater risk.

That's my view. You removed a whole load of context from my post to make it appear I described toilets as low priority and therefore don't care about dignity and safety of teenage girls. It is misrepresentation and projection of what you think my view is.

So, you are not arguing that the Government is discussing toilets and 'trans kids' unnecessarily ? You agree that the Government should be discussing these in the wider context of protection of children and making sure laws protect all female people?

What part of calling discussions about 'toilets' and 'trans kids' is a 'culture war' again? And not relevant issues to be discussed as stand alone issues or within a wider range of issues?

What makes discussion of those specific topics 'a culture war' where 'culture war' is being used to portray those discussing them, including 'the government' as extreme, warranted as a description?

I am trying to work out exactly what you mean. It is not clear, and from looking at other people's posts, I am certainly not the only one struggling to understand how he has mentioned specifically two issues as being example of 'culture war' issues but that somehow, he didn't mean those two issues were not worthy of discussion.

Because him using those issues as a 'reduction of the argument' would surely mean that he found them trivial, wouldn't it? Doesn't him doing this mean that he believes them to be unimportant and that they shouldn't be discussed in the 'trans debate'?

Or are you again saying that the government shouldn't be discussing issues where there is conflicts with the demands of trans people and should only be focused on other issues?

And still he has not specifically said that. He still seems to be reluctant to state that no male people should be in female single sex spaces under his government.

And let's also be honest, Starmer may not even make it to an election.

Are you trying to tell us all that Labour would continue under Starmer's direction (if in fact he does mean 'only female people') if Starmer is replaced? Are you really trying to say that that would be the case when what is it, over 30 young labour groups are striving to have Tonia Antoniazzi sanctioned?

thanks to feminists, are being forced to do so.

Forced.

By feminists fighting tooth and nail for years, and still fighting - school by school, policy by policy.

And yet you think we shouldn't bother with this particular fight because it's lower priority.

Again I ask, are you really saying the reason to abandon a fight is because it's working?

As Labour is in government is Wales, I’ve had a look at their LGBTQ+ plan to see if it says anything about single-sex spaces. I couldn’t find anything but it says this about sport. No paragraph numbering but I think it was section G.

“Sport is wide-ranging, and a uniform approach to a very complex issue is challenging. There is clearly widespread support for ensuring that sport is welcoming to all, including transgender people. Our position concerning inclusion in sport is clear: LGBTQ+ rights, including trans rights, are human rights and as the First Minister Mark Drakeford said, our starting point is that transgender women are women (Senedd Cymru 2022b). Sport should be for everyone, a place where everyone can take part and where everyone is treated with kindness, dignity, and respect. We must work hard to look for opportunities for dialogue, to find ways of promoting understanding rather than conflict, and to demonstrate respect rather than to look for exclusion.”

It also says this, which seems to be about going further than EA2010.

“In non-devolved policy areas, initiate conversations with UK Government aiming to implement a recognition of non-binary people on passports and driving licenses (e.g., X gender marker).”

The nearest thing to recognition of biological sex I could find in the document was this:

“Action 19: ensure maternity and fertility services are accessible and straightforward to use for LGBTQ+ people

How we will achieve it?

Review and improve fertility referral pathways and services for LGBTQ+ people.

• Identify, review, and improve access for IVF, including financial costs for LGBTQ+ people.
• WHSSC fertility guidance, open for public consultation in November/December 2022 to make reference to female assigned at birth and male assigned at birth and patients on an NHS funded pathway for gender reassignment, and include information on how they access fertility preservation.

What the impact will be?

• Single sex families can access fertility treatment equally.
• Trans people have timely access to gamete storage that does not unduly delay a medical transition.”

I haven’t looked at their gender equality plan.

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

It’s in the first line.

Regardless of what they said earlier in April their position has switched to the statement below

People seem certain they’ll get single sex spaces, which ones do they think they will be exactly?

Reducing a complex debate to an oversimplified position so that people can take a "good"/"bad" view is a culture war.

Looking at sex based rights through a lens of "the baddies want to allow men into spaces where women use the toilet" or "the baddies want children to be able to have gender reassignment without talking to their parents" is reducing a complex debate to an extreme, over simplified position designed to appeal to emotion and shut down a debate. My reading of the article is that is what Cumming was referring to.

It's the opposite of him trivialising it. He's saying the proponents of the culture wars are trivialising it and "We don't really talk about policies, we don't really talk about real issues, or things that are really important."

You keep trying to make this black and white- "if you don't mean this, you must mean that". It isn't black and white.

Thanks @LoobiJee

Any vague mention of ‘reasonable’ needs to be explicitly defined with a list

Sorry,

What part of calling discussions about 'toilets' and 'trans kids' is a 'culture war' again? And not relevant issues to be discussed as stand alone issues or within a wider range of issues?

should be

What part of discussions about 'toilets' and 'trans kids' is a 'culture war' again? And not relevant issues to be discussed as stand alone issues or within a wider range of issues?

I added a 'calling' in there.

Only if you want to cause a fight and kick off a culture war.
In real life there is nuance. Good laws and policies allow context and circumstances to be accounted for.

@AdamRyan

Just to clarify, and you might well have already said something about this, and I've missed it, but what is your actual position on women's toilets?

Do you agree that they should be women only and exclude all and any male born individual, however he identifies?

How would a male with a GRC know where they can have access?

At some point we’ll all need to be aware

How else would it work?

Can you be explicit on the process you envisage as it seems unworkable

I’ve now had a look at the gender equality plan. No mention of single sex spaces/facilities/services.

But it does say this in the intro….

“What will true gender equality look like?

Welsh Government aims to advance gender equality to the point where women, men and non-binary people are treated equally and fairly in all aspects of their lives with a focus on equality of outcome. This also applies to women who may experience intersecting inequalities such as disability, race, LGBT+, age, marital status, pregnancy and maternity considerations, religion or belief, which can create new or compound inequalities. Welsh Government recognises that people are not defined by single issues or barriers but are complex and require different things to enable them to participate fully in Welsh life. Similarly, inequalities produced by social, cultural and economic systems are complex and need a whole system approach to prevent them from reproducing unequal outcomes.”

I am not making this 'black and white', what I am attempting to do is to establish why you believe that he has said something that seems to be an over reach on your part. And, I am pointing out that discussions about toilets and 'trans kids' are far from 'trivialising' the issue. They are direct impacts of 'the real issues'.

He said:

He explained: 'I think that, you know, the sort of culture wars are so awful. We don't really talk about policies, we don't really talk about real issues, or things that are really important.

'What we do is we grab on to things like trans kids and bathrooms, and we make that the culture war.'

Here he has declared that 'culture wars' are when people are not discussing policies, not talking about 'real issues' or what is 'really important'. He then brings in 'trans kids and bathrooms' specifically. Both are relevant to the over all policy discussions.

I am reading his statement in context and I have listened to his interview. What part of this statement is not dismissive of 'trans kids and bathrooms' as not being part of the real issues, and are not part of a policy discussion and and are not 'really important'? By using these two issues as examples of 'the culture war', it is him dismissing their importance.

Has he clarified his thinking here?

Welsh Government aims to advance gender equality to the point where women, men and non-binary people are treated equally

I can't see how that would be enforced.

I thought it was fin as it was before all the self ID nonsense - a social contract where some males identified as women and it was accepted they would use the ladies, but men wouldn't enter and if a woman challenged a male, they'd be removed.

If we have to have an extreme, I prefer "no men ever" to "anyone who says they are a woman".

God knows how on earth you'd legislate or police it though.

As I said on a different thread, I've had a couple of colleagues I suspect were trans, I never asked them because it would seem intrusive and I had no problem with them using the ladies at the same time as me. To me it would seem unfair and unnecessary if they suddenly had to stop or risk breaking the law🤷‍♀️

People are going to need more than ‘a co worker hadn’t asked me’ to know if the law applies to them or not.

Being explicit on what is allowed within the law or not is pretty crucial for all of us

Did transwomen ever ask us whether we minded them using women's toilets?