Petition : *Update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex*

Mollygo

Rosie51

Signed. I do wonder why anybody who agrees with all the other protected characteristics in the EA wouldn't think the 'sex' characteristic should be defined according to sex. Gender is a protected category. Are they frightened if sex is properly defined and protected as in biology, women might actually retain some protections?

Exactly that Rosie51.
By not signing, they make it quite clear that for them, male supremacy still rules, even if he’s wearing a dress!

What a load of rot! I'm not signing, but not because I believe male supremacy rules (or should rule).

FarNorth

A situation where a baby died, in part because a female person was designated 'male' in her medical notes.

metro.co.uk/2019/05/20/pregnant-transgender-mans-baby-died-because-nurse-didnt-realize-he-was-in-labor-9613972/

This death was nothing to do with the patient being designated as a man. He had performed a pregnancy test and told staff he might be pregnant. The failure of staff to listen to him caused the death, not his designation. Staff performed a pregnancy test as well which is very odd if they considered he was a male. It's a clear case of a transgender person being mistreated but possibly not for the reason claimed.

growstuff

Mollygo

Rosie51

Signed. I do wonder why anybody who agrees with all the other protected characteristics in the EA wouldn't think the 'sex' characteristic should be defined according to sex. Gender is a protected category. Are they frightened if sex is properly defined and protected as in biology, women might actually retain some protections?

Exactly that Rosie51.
By not signing, they make it quite clear that for them, male supremacy still rules, even if he’s wearing a dress!

What a load of rot! I'm not signing, but not because I believe male supremacy rules (or should rule).

Are you willing to say why you wouldn't sign, why you don't think the sex category should be based on biological sex (since scientifically there is only biological sex) anything else is the amorphous 'gender' thingy.

FarNorth

A situation where a baby died, in part because a female person was designated 'male' in her medical notes.

metro.co.uk/2019/05/20/pregnant-transgender-mans-baby-died-because-nurse-didnt-realize-he-was-in-labor-9613972/

That is really sad, but therein lies the problem. If you say you are a man (AHF) then you can’t be pregnant.
Same as if you insist you are a woman, you can’t get inflammation of or problems with a penis or testicles.
At some time, you need to acknowledge the your birth sex. It’s your responsibility.
I’ve read enough posts telling me I’m wrong to say TW are male, not AHF, but sometimes there a reason for telling the truth-that you can’t change sex.

Rosie51

growstuff

Mollygo

Rosie51

Signed. I do wonder why anybody who agrees with all the other protected characteristics in the EA wouldn't think the 'sex' characteristic should be defined according to sex. Gender is a protected category. Are they frightened if sex is properly defined and protected as in biology, women might actually retain some protections?

Exactly that Rosie51.
By not signing, they make it quite clear that for them, male supremacy still rules, even if he’s wearing a dress!

What a load of rot! I'm not signing, but not because I believe male supremacy rules (or should rule).

Are you willing to say why you wouldn't sign, why you don't think the sex category should be based on biological sex (since scientifically there is only biological sex) anything else is the amorphous 'gender' thingy.

None of your business! It's not a police state, is it?

You wouldn't like my reply anyway!

growstuff

Rosie51

growstuff

Mollygo

Rosie51

Signed. I do wonder why anybody who agrees with all the other protected characteristics in the EA wouldn't think the 'sex' characteristic should be defined according to sex. Gender is a protected category. Are they frightened if sex is properly defined and protected as in biology, women might actually retain some protections?

Exactly that Rosie51.
By not signing, they make it quite clear that for them, male supremacy still rules, even if he’s wearing a dress!

What a load of rot! I'm not signing, but not because I believe male supremacy rules (or should rule).

Are you willing to say why you wouldn't sign, why you don't think the sex category should be based on biological sex (since scientifically there is only biological sex) anything else is the amorphous 'gender' thingy.

None of your business! It's not a police state, is it?

You wouldn't like my reply anyway!

Wow, aggressive or what!!!!!! That was a polite enquiry whether you would be willing to expand on your reply. That you respond in such a way speaks volumes!!!!! I now know to totally dismiss any reference of yours to family members who have 'scientific knowledge, expertise or whatever' as a total irrelevance, not to be given any weight at all.

Signed

Rosie51

growstuff

Rosie51

growstuff

Mollygo

Rosie51

Signed. I do wonder why anybody who agrees with all the other protected characteristics in the EA wouldn't think the 'sex' characteristic should be defined according to sex. Gender is a protected category. Are they frightened if sex is properly defined and protected as in biology, women might actually retain some protections?

Exactly that Rosie51.
By not signing, they make it quite clear that for them, male supremacy still rules, even if he’s wearing a dress!

What a load of rot! I'm not signing, but not because I believe male supremacy rules (or should rule).

Are you willing to say why you wouldn't sign, why you don't think the sex category should be based on biological sex (since scientifically there is only biological sex) anything else is the amorphous 'gender' thingy.

None of your business! It's not a police state, is it?

You wouldn't like my reply anyway!

Wow, aggressive or what!!!!!! That was a polite enquiry whether you would be willing to expand on your reply. That you respond in such a way speaks volumes!!!!! I now know to totally dismiss any reference of yours to family members who have 'scientific knowledge, expertise or whatever' as a total irrelevance, not to be given any weight at all.

Your choice!

It is absolutely no business of yours why I won't sign the petition. You might not like this, but not everybody supports your beliefs.

I've pretty much had enough of people telling me if I don't agree with them then I want to take rights away from women or that I think male supremacy is ok.

These extreme views is what generally keeps me away from these threads.

Signed.

No

Sex is a protected characteristic, I think this is an interesting move. I was very unsure about the legal campaign around gender critical views being a protected belief, but that was absolutely the right thing to do.

My confirmation email arrived!👏
It’s no business of anyone why people have different views on anything, whether it’s sex, family behaviour, duvets, punctuation, or many other topics.
But when has that stopped posters on GN from putting their own interpretations, commenting, or telling others they’re wrong or even getting posters banned if they don’t like what someone says.
That’s what’s going on here - except
we won’t know about the exclusions until someone else finds they’ve been reported.

It is interesting who’s saying no though, especially since most on here purport to be female.

It’s no business of anyone why people have different views on anything*

Agreed. And it's no business of anyone's to accuse others of supporting male supremacy, just because they don't agree with you.

You might, of course, be interested in learning that I never sign these petitions because they never lead to anything and they are a great way for people to virtue signal, and comfort themselves that they are doing something important.

I think that can be true with petitions but this one may be more interesting because of the previous legal success.

never sign these petitions because they never lead to anything
Evidence please.

Do you have an example of a petition to have something discussed in Parliament that has reached the required number of signatures, been discussed in Parliament and led to the publication of a response that says anything other than "yes, good idea, but we won't be doing anything about it"?

Signed.

It may be worth considering, to anyone who signs this petition, to simply ignore any aggressive remarks by posters who do not want to sign, as it could lead to spats and the thread being pulled.This is often the purpose as those who do not like a thread wish it to happen.I have seen this on forums before, and it is a shame.

On a couple of occasions on the last couple of days Prentice, you have said that posters who don't like the topic of a thread, want to have it "pulled". I'm afraid that's just not true. It's a nasty comment and based only on an unfounded belief that there are people here who don't want to have certain things discussed.

I have never seen it happen in here except when offended people write "oh, this thread should be pulled"

Sign all the petitions you like, discuss them till the cows come home. But please don't cast unfounded assertions on other GN posters.

I think the upskirting petition had an impact. They tend to be part of a wider strategy of campaigning.

I think petitions certainly are a means of campaigning Galaxy. These government petitions, though, in my opinion, are a way for the government to pretend we have a voice, when they do nothing at all about them. The rule that 100,000 signatures means it will be "considered" for debate. Maybe, but it won't be debated.

It happens on forums Volver whether you agree or not.
This isn’t really a discussion in any case, as FarNorth supplied us with a petition.Anyone’s choice to say signed or not signing.

They did do something about upskirting though. I think that was a government petition if I remember rightly. That was an easy win though, there tends not to be many people who would support the right to upskirt so it is easy for a government to implement. This one not so easy.

Absolutely. Anyone who wants to sign should sign. Sign away. It's a free country.

And anybody who doesn't want to sign shouldn't be accused of undermining women's rights, or supporting male supremacy.

Signed