Sandie Peggie has lost her case against the nursing union.

[RhannionKPSS]

Terrible news

Talk about not arguing in good faith.

I'd have zero objection to the options of male, female and mixed.

What you are saying is racist imo even if you do not mean it that way.

Would you suggest that black men and women, for example living in a country where everyone is black, are creating the equivalent of ‘racial segregation’ if the women have changing and lavatory spaces set aside for women, while the men have others for them?

In other words, do you deny black women (and men) the right for dignified, sex-based spaces?

I am sure even Sandi Peggi ‘the racist’ bigot would have agreed it was normal for a black nurse to share the changing room, while if Dr Upton had been a black male it still would not have been right for him to do so.

They expose themselves when they use the women’s changing room. And I don’t just mean physically. People have eyes and next to no man ‘passes’ as a woman in real life. Upton certainly doesn’t. People seeing a doctor in scrubs with long hair would assume he is just a male doctor with long hair. ‘Outing’ is him telling people to call him ‘she/her’ or invading a female space.

Oh bollocks just realised pattern matching suggests my post will do nothing more than spin round the merry go round. Probably won't bother taking the ride. My post is strong and stands in its own right whatever attempt at obfustication follows.

Her feelings are valid. The question is whether they constitute a veto on where other people are allowed to be.
I’m not saying trans people’s boundaries trump women’s — that’s your reversal, not my claim.

A pp said ‘dignity and privacy are for everyone, whether you like them or not’. I questioned whether that applied to trans people. The answer was ‘yes, but only where women’s boundaries allow’. I asked whether trans people are afforded the same ‘boundaries’. And now you’ve reversed it and pointed the same question back at me!

Which rather proves the point doesn't it: this isn’t about boundaries, it’s about how to resolve competing interests in a shared space — and the answer to that can’t just be ‘because MY boundaries’.

It has just as much authority as "trans women are women".

Well quite!!!!

And you fully object to that statement don't you?

So you don’t want dignity and privacy for anyone? You now argue all changing rooms should be mixed sex?

As you surely know, "segregation" via the provision of separate services and provisions for different social groups is necessary in multiple ways. We "segregate" by age when determining access to education or elderly care homes. We "segregate" by ability when determining eligibility for disability services. We "segregate" by race when providing services to minority groups. We "segregate" by sex for access to healthcare.

"Segregation" is key to providing fair and safe access to services and provisions. It's why the Equality Act has exceptions and allows for those who share a protected characteristic to organise around that PC and exclude those without that PC. It's why discrimination is lawful when it's "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim."

Suggesting that people who want separate services and provisions organised around age, disability, race and sex, for example, are in the wrong seems like a far right everyone for themselves survival of the fittest get rid of the EqA sort of thing to me.

If it were being weaponised as a term to imply that some parents aren't REAL parents then absolutely hell to the yes.

It really is amazing what cannot be answered. Every time.

Back to this?

Of all the red herrings that have been thrown in over the years, this may be the most crimson.

And you fully object to that statement don't you?

We object to that statement because it's a lie. Transwomen are men. All transwomen are men by definition.

If you read my post properly you'll realise why that's a nonsensical question.

First, define your terms. Only then can we can have a meaningful dialogue.

By your definition. By another's, trans women are women. Neither is more true than the other — they're competing definitions, which is why 'it's a lie' doesn't work. Definitions aren't true or false; they're choices about how to use a word.

Any chance of explaining what changes in a man to make him a 'trans woman'?

Can anyone define 'transwoman' for me.

Try to run medicine or aviation, or anything on that principle!

You don’t get to make up your own meaning of words, that’s not how language and the world works. If you want to believe up now means down, and left means right because it suits you, it’s incorrect but crack on. Up still means up and left still means left and the world keeps turning. And trans women remain men.

Welcome to the post-factual world, where anything can mean anything!

There is a clear, verifiable, scientific definition of woman/female and man/woman. The fact that it is verifiable and consistent makes it more true than any alternative definitions. The alternative definitions lack clarity and consistency - current usage of 'woman' to also mean 'some men' by a small number of people is not the same as an established definition.

The established meaning of 'woman/female and man/male works fine for the majority of people, in the majority of contexts.

That it does not suit a very small number of people is challenging for them, but the solution is not to skew the established meaning of words and claim that other 'competing definitions' are just as true.

That is clearly unreasonable and disproportionate and I believe that makes it unfair and unacceptable.

It isn’t, it’s just a thing that exists. There is a biological parent, and there is a parent caregiver role.

Are you actually denying there is such a thing as a biological parent as opposed to an adoptive/foster/step parent, @Lacksie

Badgers are mammals, by one definition.

By another definition, badgers are fish.

Who's to say which is right?

Phewweeee . Look at how many assumptions are packed into that:

1. That there is one clear, consistent, scientific definition of woman/female. Which one — chromosomes, gametes, gonads, hormones, anatomy? They don’t always agree.

2. That being verifiable makes a definition “more true” than another. But plenty of definitions are verifiable — chromosomes, gonads, birth certificate, legal sex — and they don’t all pick out the same people. If verifiability were the test, they’d all be equally “true”. So how does that make any sense?

1. That your definition of the word "woman" is the only one that counts. This is the entire dispute. Why have you assumed the answer?

1. That every alternative definition lacks clarity and consistency. Have you examined them? Demonstrate why.

1. That the definition is “established” and there is consensus. If so, why is it in front of the Supreme Court, Parliament and the tribunals? A definition under active legal dispute is contested, not established.

1. That "works fine for the majority" is the definitive test of the value of a definition. Every exclusion works fine for the people it doesn’t exclude.

1. That majority usage settles meaning, but minority usage doesn’t count. Which is it? Every change in a word’s meaning started with a minority using it differently. Also you haven't established that your definition is the "majority" one - you've just asserted it.

1. That a group being “very small” reduces the weight of its interests. Where did that principle come from?

1. That disputing what a word covers is “post-factual.” Which fact has anyone denied?

10. That using language more inclusively than you want to use it is “disproportionate.” Disproportionate to what? You haven’t named a single cost to the majority.

11. “I believe that makes it unfair and unacceptable” — so the conclusion rests on your belief. Which is where we started.

How did you conclude that from this?

"If it it were being weaponised as a term to imply that some parents aren't REAL parents then absolutely hell to the yes."