STOP MIS GENDERING ME JUST SAY SHE

[RogueFemale]

In case anyone has missed this prize example of a mentally ill adult male exhibiting trans entitlement.

My apologies. @RogueFemale .. which little man? Just checking you don't mean me because I'm a 54-year-old menopausal mother of three.

You've twisted that. I said it's not legal to behave with prejudice against someone who defines as the opposite sex, by insisting on refering to them by what they perceive as their "dead gender"

But why is that "prejudice"? It's not. It's just reality as seen by someone who doesn't respect or live by gender stereotypes as some kind of definition or "woman" and "man", but instead thinks only sex defines these (as per UK law).

Which means exactly what you said, you bizarrely think it’s illegal to refer to “trans women” as men even though mysteriously you don’t seem to be able to back this razor sharp legal opinion up, and the Supreme Court has confirmed that they are in fact, all men, even the ones with certificates 🤷‍♀️

@Douche There is no law requiring people to use another person's preferred pronouns, or requiring them to pretend that person is a woman when they are a biological male.

Call people whatever you like, you’re just beclowning yourself further. Genderism has a way of doing that that can make even clever people look absurd and silly.

It's illegal to discriminate against at those undergoing gender reassignment by denying rj things like housing. Or firing them.

It is quite obviously not illegal to refer to them as the sex they are.

I did not twist anything you said.

20.37
You posted:

To make this very very clear, for the 10th time, no I do not think that. The problem as I see it, is what you have just very clearly demonstrated. You have defined all trans women as men. As many on Mum'snet seem to do. And this is what you cannot do legally anymore. It's not ok. You just think it is.
[my bold]

and 20.42
You posted ( in reponse to @Ereshkigalangcleg ):

no you cannot.. you absolutely cannot lawfully and legally do it. Not if they identify as female. Won't stop you of course. (That's where the prejudice comes in ). But it won't be lawful or legal.
[my bold]

ed SPAG

Have they? Not seeing it tbh

I would never agree with my son that he was actually a girl. Too much pretending - he has to pretend (he knows he’s not) and the people around him have to pretend (they know he’s not). He can’t control what the people around him actually think, no matter how “be kind” they are. He will know people are pretending and will externalise his rage, mainly directed at women - because he isnt one. He will call it “hate”..

Ironically, pretending to be female often means reverting to regressive stereotypes- hair, make up, mannerisms. Good luck to my (hypothetical son) trying to convince his three sisters and me that he’s a woman because he wears skirts and mascara every day.

I don’t care anymore about gender feels, 76 genders, all the flags, “be kind”. Stop using our words, our spaces. Keep your blue-wigged, stripy socked, tantrumy kin away from our changing rooms.

Thank you. I appreciate that balanced representation. I don't think anywhere I have stated that birth sex can be changed.. even with surgery you are still what you were born as, deep down.. but Mumsnet appears to represent it as 'wrong' to be trans.. and for it to be 'ok' and 'correct' to refer to such people by their dead pronouns.. as if they lived experience and/or trauma is entirely meaningless

I’m pretty sure this poster is aware of this.

Well said.

NOT what I said.. .. I said that being trans has protected status and you can't legally abuse somebody for it. What is so hard to understand about that?

It’s wrong to make people pretend. Compelled speech is wrong.

But what I'm saying is the law no longer sees it that way. Trans people will be trans people and no amount of saying it's wrong to make people pretend is going to change that.

You said it was illegal to call a "transwoman" a man. You know you said that. We know you said that. I'd just like you to show us the law that confirms that, please.

ed sp

Pretending isn't kind. It's a lie.

A lie that harms the very people it claims to help.

It's like upon lie upon lie, until you have told so many lies the lie collapses under its own weight because reality whispers really quietly

"Boo"

And then someone lies again and claims that instead of reality whispering boo, what actually happened was some old crone on MN threatened them with a chainsaw with death and erasure from history by mad raving witches and it was all JKRowlings fault because she wore blue today.

Because this is how divorced they've become with the real world and become immersed in this shit pile of lies that just can't help but self replicate with every single next statement.

Speaking of what may help...

Clauses 91 onwards of the below clarify where you're going wrong. Much of the rest, too, to be honest.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf

The law in the UK relies on the visibility of sex to protect transpeople.

The end.

Goodnight.

Then tell us the fucking law you rely on. Cite the statute.

Night. Much love 🤣

91: The question is whether the Tribunal was correct to consider that the existence of a GRC means that the Claimant is not entitled in any circumstances to refer to a trans woman holding such a certificate as a man.

94: there is nothing in the Act that requires a person acting in any private capacity to refer to a person’s UKEAT/0105/20/JOJ -46- A B C D E F G H acquired gender or to refrain from referring to a person’s gender before it became the acquired gender.

97: Although s. 9, GRA refers to a person becoming “for all purposes” the acquired gender, it is clear from these references in decisions of the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal, that this means for all “legal purposes”. That the effect of s.9, GRA is not to erase memories of a person’s gender before the acquired gender or to impose recognition of the acquired gender in private, non-legal contexts is confirmed by the comments of Baroness Hale in R (C) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2017] 1 WLR 4127 (SC).

99: The effect of a GRC, whilst broad as a matter of law, does not mean that a person who, like the Claimant, continues to believe that a trans woman with a GRC is still a man, is necessarily in breach of the GRA by doing so; the GRA does not compel a person to believe something that they do not

Etc.