[arista]

[arista]

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Express reports that campaigners
who won the landmark Supreme Court ruling
on the definition of a woman are facing a campaign
of "death threats and abuse"]

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Express reports that campaigners
who won the landmark Supreme Court ruling
on the definition of a woman are facing a campaign
of "death threats and abuse"]

Are these the same people who we are told just want to live their lives quietly? Can people wake up these men are not trans per se ...and never have been

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Are these the same people who we are told just want to live their lives quietly? Can people wake up these men are not trans per se ...and never have been

I don’t know, are they the same people?

What’s your point? Radicals exist in every single demographic in life. I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

[arista]

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Telegraph is another paper
still leading with the fallout from the
gender ruling.
It says the prime minister has refused
to stop a plot by ministers to "thwart" the judgment.
It writes Labour ministers and MPs
will meet this week to discuss how to promote
trans rights following the landmark judgement.]

[Vicky.]

ToThe equivalent here would be if gay men felt they needed a space away from straight men, not the other way sround. And I don't see the issue if they did? They have in the past because of straight mens behaviour, stuff like gay bars, gay only groups etc.

(Reply to BBX, quoting is awkward on my phone)

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

ToThe equivalent here would be if gay men felt they needed a space away from straight men, not the other way sround. And I don't see the issue if they did? They have in the past because of straight mens behaviour, stuff like gay bars, gay only groups etc.

(Reply to BBX, quoting is awkward on my phone)

The reason I did it that way around was because on the fact gay man find men attractive and straight men finding that uncomfortable leading to the exclusion of gay men in male spaces would be considered discriminatory. Also because in both cases it’s the minority and marginalised community being ostracised in both cases. (I’m not saying women aren’t marginalised but comparatively to the trans community it’s quite different and they’re not the minority)

However, even in your example, gay spaces are rarely straight-excluding and even social clubs like LGBT sports teams are often inclusive of all (gay, straight, trans, women) and things like gay running groups, book clubs etc are done as a way to meet other gay people, rather than exclude straight people.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

The reason I did it that way around was because on the fact gay man find men attractive and straight men finding that uncomfortable leading to the exclusion of gay men in male spaces would be considered discriminatory. Also because in both cases it’s the minority and marginalised community being ostracised in both cases. (I’m not saying women aren’t marginalised but comparatively to the trans community it’s quite different and they’re not the minority)

I'm going to be controversial here and say that with the example of toilets/changing facilities... it's actually the other way around that the numbers need to be considered. I fully appreciate the need to consider minorities at, for example, a political representation level where the risk is being drowned out / over-ruled by majority opinion arbitrarily and without consideration, but in the case of access to public spaces and risk/comfort, the balance being towards the comfort of the people who will most commonly be using that space is ... actually the primary consideration.

It's difficult to use bathrooms and changing to illustrate this well but you can easily do it with violence against women shelters, where there needs to be a feeling of safety not only in male threats not being present, but in it being not possible for male threats to be present (the possibility is in itself a direct concern). Because 99.9% off people accessing that space will be women, coming from an abusive situation... unfortunately yes, those people do have to be the primary consideration, and that 99.9% can't be disproportionately impacted to accommodate a minority situation. I appreciate that this is a difficult thing to consider.

I would basically counter (as I usually do) that the solution is to head in the direction of individual, self-contained, securable units (toilets, changing, whatever) where this doesn't need to be a concern in the first place. The answer is not shoehorning a situation that, simply, I suspect doesn't HAVE a solution that works for everyone. It does not exist.

[arista]

This is why Tomorrow PM Starmer
should speak in an announcement in parliament
after 2:30PM

To Clarify this Mess.


Then on Weds
no one can take the Piss of him
in PMQ's

[bots]

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

[arista]

Originally Posted by bots

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

The real trouble is
they will not.


This is why it's sensible for PM Starmer
to go into Parliament after 2:30PM, Tuesday
and give his new view on the judgment.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

The real trouble is
they will not.


This is why it's sensible for PM Starmer
to go into Parliament after 2:30PM, Tuesday
and give his new view on the judgment.

Bit late isn't it, we all know his views quiet clearly now

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by bots

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

Prepare for malicious compliance.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Prepare for malicious compliance.

what a bizarre comment to make, what does malicious compliance mean?

[BBXX]

Look, I think this all really boils down to whether you believe someone's gender is based off their biological reproductive organs and chromosomes, or if you believe gender is separate from sex and someone can be a woman regardless of what they have between their legs.

If the former, then you'll never ever see a trans person as separate from their biological make-up and so the idea of a trans person being in the same safe spaces as biological cis women is an issue, of course, because ultimately to you they are and always will be a man.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Look, I think this all really boils down to whether you believe someone's gender is based off their biological reproductive organs and chromosomes, or if you believe gender is separate from sex and someone can be a woman regardless of what they have between their legs.

I disagree and 15+ years ago before people (intentionally) muddied the water good science and sociology also disagreed - it doesn't boil down to that at all, it boils down to the fact that sex (biological) and gender (social construct) are entirely different concepts and while you can argue that there's nothing inherent about sex and gender that mean they have to "match", it's irrelevant to whether or not sex-separated spaces should have anything at all to do with gender, any more than they should relate to any other social construct.

In fact (this part is just opinion, I will admit) rigid social rules are the whole problem; "I seem to behave and exist in a more traditionally feminine way than masculine, I identify with and feel more like the females I encounter than the males, therefore I must also BE female". It's easy to see where the conclusion comes from but it's bullsh** - it's just that we live in a rigid-thinking society when it comes to male/female social expression and most people are inclined to adhere to social norms. We "expect" to see men "looking like men" and women "looking like women" and if someone doesn't stay in their lane then they "are the other" (trans) instead of just... still being the sex they are, yet still presenting however they like.

Gender as a concept and it's origins is a deep and fascinating subject, my honest and frank opinion is that a lot of transgender rhetoric massively oversimplifies it conceptually and also far too often conflates gender and sex, and that's been an increasing issue over the last decade/decade and a half.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

...it's irrelevant to whether or not sex-separated spaces should have anything at all to do with gender, any more than they should relate to any other social construct.

But why? We're not talking about someone feeling more feminine here, we're talking about someone's brain telling them they're a female to the point they have gender-reaffirming surgery to match as closely as possible their body to the gender in which they believe themselves to be. Why is that not considered enough?

In fact (this part is just opinion, I will admit) rigid social rules are the whole problem; "I seem to behave and exist in a more traditionally feminine way than masculine, I identify with and feel more like the females I encounter than the males, therefore I must also BE female". It's easy to see where the conclusion comes from but it's bullsh** - it's just that we live in a rigid-thinking society when it comes to male/female social expression and most people are inclined to adhere to social norms. We "expect" to see men "looking like men" and women "looking like women" and if someone doesn't stay in their lane then they "are the other" (trans) instead of just... still being the sex they are, yet still presenting however they like.

In essence I agree that gender social rules are restrictive and can be problematic - funnily enough these rules are largely reinforced by right-wingers who take issue with anything that isn't binary and straight - but I think you're verging a bit too close to trans-erasure in your comment by suggesting that if someone doesn't fit into a typical masculine box they are now saying they're trans, or being told they are.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that will happen in rare cases, but by and large, stats show the detransition rate is extremely low and I think it's important we don't assume that's what's happening and undermine the validity of something someone is going through just because we think we know better (because as cis people we never will truly understand it).

[Vicky.]

I agree gender and sex are different. I don't see why 'gender' should have any affect on sex segregated spaces.

[arista]

PM Starmer
has stated he welcomes the Judge's Judgment.

First clip seen

BBC2HD Politics Live
Start of the show

[arista]

The SNP are changing nothing,
typical of them.
The Scottish Conservatives wanted answers from them.
got nothing

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

The SNP are changing nothing,
typical of them.
The Scottish Conservatives wanted answers from them.
got nothing

So they are breaking the law?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

So they are breaking the law?

Is it a different law up there?

[bots]

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

It comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled last week that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

In March 2022, when he was leader of the opposition, Sir Keir told the Times, external that "a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law".

Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM's official spokesman said: "No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

The spokesman added: "That is set out clearly by the court judgment."

Pressed over when the PM had changed his mind, his spokesman insisted the Labour government had been consistent that single-sex spaces "are protected in law".

The ruling also makes it clear that a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have the right to use spaces or services designated as for women-only.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro


---------------------------------

Does anyone now believe a word the prime minister says?

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by bots

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

It comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled last week that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

In March 2022, when he was leader of the opposition, Sir Keir told the Times, external that "a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law".

Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM's official spokesman said: "No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

The spokesman added: "That is set out clearly by the court judgment."

Pressed over when the PM had changed his mind, his spokesman insisted the Labour government had been consistent that single-sex spaces "are protected in law".

The ruling also makes it clear that a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have the right to use spaces or services designated as for women-only.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro


---------------------------------

Does anyone now believe a word the prime minister says?

No he flip flops more than Nicky

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No he flip flops more than Nicky

To be fair Starmer is a letter of the law type, he'll go with the official legal ruling. Which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing for a politician. That's what they're supposed to do. They can disagree with laws and campaign to have them changed, but while a law is in place, politicians should follow them.

We're all a bit to used to the Trump era and politicians just totally disregarding court rulings I suppose.