The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

DiamondLily that was a report based on the opinions of transpeople who were canvassed in 2015. It wasn't Stonewall policy.

The term "transsexual" must be abhorrent to most of you. why would it be? That's the term transwomen like Debbie Hayton use about themselves because they have had full surgical transition.

Can we leave Stonewall out of it? I know you've said before that they weren't that important or words to that effect. Would you support or oppose the removal of the single sex exemptions? A very simple question, I'm truly interested in your opinion.

Trans people must be able to understand when their rights are infringed, and to be able to take appropriate action.

And when these rights conflict with or override the rights of natal females, trisher, your position is . . . ?

trisher, you are v very fond of asking direct questions of others, but less keen to answer any that are put to you (eg the difference between a woman, a transwoman and a man in a dress), but this is very simple. A yes or no would do if you don't want to qualify it.

Regardless of Stonewall's policy, what is your opinion? Do you support the removal of single-sex exclusions or not?

(I wasn't having a go, DL. Just trying to get an answer from trisher)

Doodledog

*trisher*, you are v very fond of asking direct questions of others, but less keen to answer any that are put to you (eg the difference between a woman, a transwoman and a man in a dress), but this is very simple. A yes or no would do if you don't want to qualify it.

Regardless of Stonewall's policy, what is your opinion? Do you support the removal of single-sex exclusions or not?

(I wasn't having a go, DL. Just trying to get an answer from trisher)

Doodledog as you must know I have constantly posted (and been reprimanded for doing so) that single sex provision is protected and that transwomen even witha GRC can be excluded from any place, facility or service. Given that I have been posting this since these debates began, my respect for that law ,and questioning why it was not being applied correctly why on earth are you now questioning if I support the removal of single sex provision?
Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you simply don't pay attention to my posts.

Rosie51

^The term "transsexual" must be abhorrent to most of you.^ why would it be? That's the term transwomen like Debbie Hayton use about themselves because they have had full surgical transition.

Can we leave Stonewall out of it? I know you've said before that they weren't that important or words to that effect. Would you support or oppose the removal of the single sex exemptions? A very simple question, I'm truly interested in your opinion.

Well actually I though that was what most of you thought- that sex cannot be changed and therefore transexual would seem to be an impossibility.

That's not an answer though, is it?

Saying what is happening and saying what you think should happen is not the same thing.

Either you are evading the question, or you don't understand.

If you’re in a straight answering mood, trisher, do answer this one too.

You posted:
Trans people must be able to understand when their rights are infringed, and to be able to take appropriate action
I asked:
And when these rights conflict with or override the rights of natal females, trisher, your position is . . . ?

Sex cannot be changed, and Debbie Hayton who self describes as transsexual states that transwomen are male. That's a scientist though who understands biology, just like Lord Winston.

I know what the EA says at present, and that these exemptions can be enforced. The question is would you support the removal of these exemptions? A simple yes or no would give a very clear answer.

There was a time when male homosexuality was illegal in this country. Like many I supported the calls for a change in that legislation to remove that element of our law. It was quite simple, you either agreed with the law as it stood, or supported a change.

Over to you trisher is it yes or no?

I have agreed with the law as it is since the beginning of these discussions. I have frequently quoted the law as it is and advised that it should be used. I have repeatedly been told that it is transpeople who are responsible when the law is not properly applied.I have questioned how that can be since transpeople are not the people in charge.
It would seem fairly obvious then that I continue to support the law as it is and it's application.

It also seems fairly obvious to me that I am now being cross examined because all the previously posted propaganda about Stonewall wanting to change the law is manifestly untrue and some distraction is required.

So yes I support the law as I always have done.

Now let's deal with the allegations about Stonewall. Any evidence or is it once again just a way of demonising an organisation?

Incidently when I ask a question it is because I genuinely want to know a point of view and not because I hope in some way to catch someone out.
Hence the question about transmen and sport.

Why jump to the conclusion that you are being asked a question (not cross-examined!) as a distraction? You do avoid answering things (any thoughts on the differences between a woman, a transwoman and a man in a dress?), so it's not surprising if people think you are doing so now.

Also, I don't think that Rosie thinking that Stonewall supports exclusions being withdrawn is an 'allegation'. It may be a mistake, or it may be the case that she has read something that she can't find now. It's absolutely not outside the realms of possibility, either way.

Also, it may just be your communication style, but there is a lot of 'Well, it's funny but . . .' or 'has it never occurred to you, Doodledog' in your replies that does suggest that you are trying to catch people out.

Mollygo

If you’re in a straight answering mood, trisher, do answer this one too.

You posted:
Trans people must be able to understand when their rights are infringed, and to be able to take appropriate action
I asked:
*And when these rights conflict with or override the rights of natal females, trisher, your position is . . . ?*

And. . .

Rosie I've never answered your question because I have been trying to discover any evidence that Stonewall are asking for this. If you have something I can read please do post it then I won't have to keep searching.

Stonewall’s submission (2015) to Women & Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on Transgender Equality calls for:

“A review of the Equality Act 2010 to include ‘gender identity’ rather than ‘gender reassignment’ as a protected characteristic and to remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”

womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

So yes I support the law as I always have done.

Now let's deal with the allegations about Stonewall. Any evidence or is it once again just a way of demonising an organisation? I resent your implication. I think you've been shown multiple examples, including but not limited to the link provided by DiamondLily and Madgran's link to the 2015 submission to The Women & Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on Transgender Equality.

Nobody has ever denied you have quoted the single sex exemptions, while also stating that they cannot be enforced unless people have to flash their genitals or be quickly groped. So you support the exemptions while believing they're all but unenforceable. That is not the same as saying you would oppose their removal from the EA. Any chance for clarity that if there is a groundswell of campaigning for their removal which side you'd be on? Support or oppose?

You might have seen on national news today that the Family Sex Show has been cancelled due to a huge outcry about the content that they deemed suitable for children from as young as 5. Briefly, their website blurb says that the show was about Sex, exploring names and functions, boundaries, consent, pleasure, queerness, sex, gender and relationships. Using real life bodies, personal stories, songs and movement. This show contains nakedness.

But as their nationwide shows have now been cancelled, and the CEOP and NSPCC have now being asked to investigate, the theatre has very helpfully updated their website to suggest other sex centric activities that children can be doing online instead; for example:

In the show, we mention ​masturbation.
All kinds of animals masturbate - not just humans! Use the internet to find some examples of other animals that masturbate.
Why don't you draw the animals you’ve found?
Have a go at drawing a penis
Have a go at drawing a vulva

And: If you'd like to make your own Playdoh genitals, have a go with these instructions.........

Or:

If some of your pleasures are sexual, are there any sexual practices you might like to try?

Their video reminding young children that love has no age makes me shudder Jimmy Saville flashbacks

Some amongst us will be pleased to know that the trans community haven't been forgotten in this stage show for 5 year olds:

Remember: not all women have vulvas and not all vulvas belong to women

I am so glad that their nationwide shows have been cancelled due to huge parental outcry that this is nothing more than exploitative child grooming and that the NSPCC and CEOP have been asked to investigate. If you would also like to report to CEOP, this is their url:

www.ceop.police.uk/ceop-reporting/

Rosie51

^So yes I support the law as I always have done.^

Now let's deal with the allegations about Stonewall. Any evidence or is it once again just a way of demonising an organisation? I resent your implication. I think you've been shown multiple examples, including but not limited to the link provided by DiamondLily and Madgran's link to the 2015 submission to The Women & Equalities Select Committee Inquiry on Transgender Equality.

Nobody has ever denied you have quoted the single sex exemptions, while also stating that they cannot be enforced unless people have to flash their genitals or be quickly groped. So you support the exemptions while believing they're all but unenforceable. That is not the same as saying you would oppose their removal from the EA. Any chance for clarity that if there is a groundswell of campaigning for their removal which side you'd be on? Support or oppose?

*Rosie51 so it's now wrong to point out inadequacies in the law or the fact that it is neither as simple to identify trans individuals as some pretend, nor can it be done without imposing restrictions which may harm women.
You apparently don't understand that it is possible to be critical and still believe in a law.
So to be clear. The law does not and could not encompass places like public toilets or some changing facilities. Other places where women meet and are admitted with some sort of monitoring can be regulated. But if anyone imagines that there will be a way of supervising public toilets they are simply being impractical. In any case it is irrelevant. The number of women assaulted in public toilets is very small and the number assaulted by transwomen is even smaller.

Most women are assaulted, raped or murdered by men they know. With rape statistics through the roof and the number of prosecutions falling there are much more important issues that need to be tackled.

Incidently one of the criticisms on these threads is often that information isn't up to date 2015 was 6 years ago. I posted what was written by Stonewall in 2018. Also that the 2015 report was based on what transpeopple had asked for not on what Stonewall recommended.

And the fact that the response is always the same when you point out that,
Nobody has ever denied you have quoted the single sex exemptions, while also stating that they cannot be enforced unless people have to flash their genitals or be quickly groped.
So you support the exemptions while believing they're all but unenforceable. That is not the same as saying you would oppose their removal from the EA. Any chance for clarity that if there is a groundswell of campaigning for their removal which side you'd be on?
Support or oppose?

About as much chance of a clear answer as I’ve had for this,
trisher posted
Trans people must be able to understand when their rights are infringed, and to be able to take appropriate action
I asked:
And when these rights conflict with or override the rights of natal females, trisher, your position is . . . ?

Thanks Chewbacca for publishing the reporting link. I shared it on our school staff communication.

? Molly

Doodledog as you must know I have constantly posted (and been reprimanded for doing so) that single sex provision is protected and that transwomen even witha GRC can be excluded from any place, facility or service. Given that I have been posting this since these debates began, my respect for that law ,and questioning why it was not being applied correctly why on earth are you now questioning if I support the removal of single sex provision?
I am questioning it because you have wriggled and squirmed rather than make your support (or otherwise) clear. Others have asked too, yet there is no meaningful response. Do you support (not 'recognise', and not 'respect', but support) the removal of same-sex exemptions to the EO Act?

Either you are being deliberately obtuse or you simply don't pay attention to our posts.

If it helps, I have understood trishers stance completely and it hasn't changed from what i can see.

All the laws and protections etc in place i was happily following before I even knew about them or they even knew about them. Seems like a pretty fair common sense approach and down to individual organisations etc to interpret it correctly

That's as may be, but what people are interested to know is whether or not trisher would prefer to see the exemptions removed. We can all read, and consequently can see that trisher recognises the exemptions and respects them, but that is not the same thing, is it?

Wha's your take, VS? Would you like to see them removed, or are you happy with the law as it stands? I'm assuming that you wouldn't like to see single sex rules applied across the board, but feel free to vote for that instead, if I'm mistaken.

VioletSky

If it helps, I have understood trishers stance completely and it hasn't changed from what i can see.

All the laws and protections etc in place i was happily following before I even knew about them or they even knew about them. Seems like a pretty fair common sense approach and down to individual organisations etc to interpret it correctly

???????

doodledog I am happy as things stand now