From Australia

[mrshoho]

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1YL9gqWpUm/

You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a comedy script but sadly not. Quite something that the politician understands human biology more than a medical doctor.

There will never be a valid reason for any of it to make any sense.

(Sorry if the link doesn't work)

Thanks insane. There's just no excusing such BS, a gender stealing man has the potential to get pregnant. How can anyone, especially a woman, spout such bollocks.

You'd have to be a world class idiot not to comprehend the simple point being made that the law says you can't use certain characteristics to discriminate against someone irrespective of whether the person actually possesses them.

It's really not that hard.

Calling people names is unpleasant and the clip isn’t clear but what I think she’s saying is that the protection extends even to those discriminated against in error. The same applies to our Equality Act. If an employer refuses to hire me because they don’t employ Muslims I can still claim EqA2010 protection even if I’m not a Muslim. TWAM and most of the time people’s eyes function perfectly well but if one did pass and an employer refused to hire them because they might get pregnant they would be protected.

No she comes across as an idiot because she is not clear about what she is saying. She could have simply said if a TW is perceived as female and not given a job on the basis that they may become pregnant then this could be discrimination. It would have made a lot more sense to everyone listening.

Even tho its obviously clipped out of context for the usual suspects to get off on its not rocket science to decipher….unless you want it to be.

That's very clear, if that's what she was trying to say, then she made a complete dogs dinner of it. Was that what she was trying to say though?

I thought the same as @Igmum that I think the person is saying that you can’t be discriminated against if someone thinks you are female. Eg, if your name is Leslie, and the employer assumes this is a female Lesley, not male.

However, it does present more as a French and Saunders act, and the person isn’t really addressing the questions and explaining herself.

How would you know they didn’t if its clip chimped?

No-one is ever going to believe a TW could be pregnant or get pregnant though. No employer is going to perceive they could be pregnant or get pregnant are they?

I have watched the whole thing which is available on YT. As I said before AC doesn’t explain herself well. She argues that a TW could claim pregnancy protection if asked if they were planning on having children and said yes, while if a man was asked the same question and gave the same response he would not. This then leads to confusion in the whole conversation. If AC had added in the proviso that the TW was assumed to be female then it would have made more sense of what was meant by ‘having children’ eg who becomes pregnant.

https://x.com/i/status/2061372233600389174

Hardly anyone's going to a mistake a man for a woman, and then discriminate against him on the basis that he might get pregnant. In fact, I'll be willing to bet it's never happened. And never will.

But the ideological language means they waste as much time as it's humanly fucking possible in order to talk at cross purposes, entirely deliberately.

Yeah, Anna Cody put Australia on the map with that one.

Hansard of the day
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=committees/estimate/29603/&sid=0008

Thanks for the link, it was interesting but long, very long and I might have given up when they got the genderwang claptrap.
I don't know the background to the committee, but it seems that there are members of the Australian government putting an activist HR commissioner's, who is anything but neutral, feet to the fire.

I particularly liked the comment

"Senator Cash - With all due respect, as a biological woman, I'm insulted—utterly insulted—by that explanation—that you think that I and the other biological women here need to apply for an exemption so that we can say no to having our own space to biological men. That is an insult to every biological woman, quite frankly. But the good news is that what we've established today is that we're talking about the law, and the law as it currently stands is an ass, and we will change it so we do not have to have these conversations again. Sex is biological reality. The fact that the Lesbian Action Group have spent three years now just trying to do what everyday mums and dads would think is perfectly normal is a reflection on the law, and the law has to change. It's not a reflection on you; you are implementing the law."

the law as it currently stands is an ass, and we will change it so we do not have to have these conversations again.

Hopefully they'll get around to doing that soon, very soon. Go Aus, go. ✊

Yes, I understand that. Not sure the woman doing the explanation does, though.

No. That is not what is being said. Most people know a TiM when they see him (aka TWAM) but if one did 'pass' or someone interviewing thought they 'passed' (as people think 'ladyboys' pass) then if they were not given the job because of a possible pregnancy they could claim discrimination. You don't have to have the characteristic to be discriminated against because of it. Someone has suggested a non-Muslim not being employed because they are thought to be a Muslim, and that fits, they are protected under the EA2010 even though they are NOT a Muslim because they have been discriminated against on the basis that they were.
Even so, the woman talking about this is talking nonsense.

I know, Justme56 post - No she comes across as an idiot because she is not clear about what she is saying. She could have simply said if a TW is perceived as female and not given a job on the basis that they may become pregnant then this could be discrimination. It would have made a lot more sense to everyone listening.Yesterday at 12:42 - clarified it, I agreed with Justme, it's because the idiot didn't say it that way I got confused.

There is such a miniscule possibility though of a 'passing' TIM that would be at risk of being discriminated on the perceived assumption he could become pregnant. It is insulting to women who genuinely are discriminated in this way, such as women who are infertile but could still be rejected for a job or a promotion.

Do TIMs tend to give details if their gender/sex on employment forms? What a minefield for employers.