Will the Supreme Court protect Women's Rights?

I'm not sure what Dr Upton's speciality

A&E apparently Allira

Lathyrus3

It’s a sad level of debate when people have to make things up to bolster their own point of view.

It’s an even lower level when they have to make up things their opponents are supposed to have said.

I suppose the ignoring of requests for proof or alternatively providing unintelligible answers, is inevitable given the first two.

But the suggestion that other posters should back off and “allow” such posts to go unchallenged must be the ultimate in desperation.

🙄🤔

Ok.

What has been made up, and by whom?

What has an 'opponent' said (or not said) that has been made up?

What proof are you asking for? (apologies if you have already posted a request and I have missed it).

Please try to be explicit, so we can understand who is being accused of what.

Iam64

Allira, there must be a question of Dr Upton’s fitness to practice given his evidence about his dismissal of biological sex

Indeed. It has been known for some time that men’s and women’s bodies react differently to a number of medications and that it affects what should be prescribed and the optimum dosage.

Obviously Dr Upton would be unable to make a reasoned judgment if he is unable to to understand this.

😂😂😂

Is there anyone available to have a conversation as if I am not an enemy of the state for having the occasional positive thought about trans people?

Allira, there must be a question of Dr Upton’s fitness to practice given his evidence about his dismissal of biological sex

Carlotta

Speaking of empty words; I was just thinking about the Sandie Peggie v Fife NHS case and remembered a particular statement that Dr Upton made whilst under oath. He made the following statement: I’m biologically female. The term biologically female or biologically male is completely nebulous. It has no defined or agreed meaning in science, as far as I’m aware.” Now at the time, I remember being astounded that a medically qualified professional, who had undergone many years of training in science and biology, could ever really believe that; let alone state it whilst in a court of law and legally obliged to tell the truth. So how will Wednesday's ruling impact on his testimony and could their be repercussions in regards to fitness to practice? Just thinking aloud really......

I do think Dr Upton needs help.

I'm not sure what Dr Upton's speciality is but, personally, I would not want this person as my doctor if his knowledge of biology is so inadequate.

It’s a sad level of debate when people have to make things up to bolster their own point of view.

It’s an even lower level when they have to make up things their opponents are supposed to have said.

I suppose the ignoring of requests for proof or alternatively providing unintelligible answers, is inevitable given the first two.

But the suggestion that other posters should back off and “allow” such posts to go unchallenged must be the ultimate in desperation.

🙄🤔

eazybee

^What does this mean?^
"It means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

Not original but totally appropriate.
Remarkable tolerance shown by posters on here, I would say.

Thanks eazybee - it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less

Simply perfect in every way (as Mary Poppins might sing )

Luminance

Empty words have been stated if the same people cannot allow any positive statements about trans people to go unchallenged. Now that is a rather good example of virtue signalling coming from people other than myself.

What are you talking about?

Speaking of empty words; I was just thinking about the Sandie Peggie v Fife NHS case and remembered a particular statement that Dr Upton made whilst under oath. He made the following statement: I’m biologically female. The term biologically female or biologically male is completely nebulous. It has no defined or agreed meaning in science, as far as I’m aware.” Now at the time, I remember being astounded that a medically qualified professional, who had undergone many years of training in science and biology, could ever really believe that; let alone state it whilst in a court of law and legally obliged to tell the truth. So how will Wednesday's ruling impact on his testimony and could their be repercussions in regards to fitness to practice? Just thinking aloud really......

Luminance

Empty words have been stated if the same people cannot allow any positive statements about trans people to go unchallenged. Now that is a rather good example of virtue signalling coming from people other than myself.

I have no idea what you mean by that? What positive statements have gone unchallenged? Who on here are you accusing of virtue signalling, because I've seen nothing like that.

Luminance

Then I would suggest allowing it to stand unchallenged when I say it Mollygo. I appreciate you don't want to hear about my thoughts on why gender dysphoria happens or the thoughts of others in my field but you could easily not read those if it makes you rather uncomfortable.

Oh no Luminance.
Letting LGB your inaccuracies go unchallenged would be doing no service to anyone, whether they’re your inaccuracies or from others in your field wherever that is.
I’ve just read a post from a mother of a baby who boy who has decided he’s transgender.
Gender dysphoria or Munchausens by proxy?
You shouldn’t assume your comments make me feel uncomfortable either. That’s assumption is as big an untruth as saying you can change sex.
😁

What does this mean?
"It means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

Not original but totally appropriate.
Remarkable tolerance shown by posters on here, I would say.

I have been entertaining visitors this afternoon, so I must have missed that. Which positive statements have been challenged?

What does this mean

Empty words have been stated if the same people cannot allow any positive statements about trans people to go unchallenged. Now that is a rather good example of virtue signalling coming from people other than myself.

Who on gransnet has said that they DON'T believe that " there are trans people who do not wish any harm to women, have not encroached on their safe spaces and have not campaigned for anything.", Luminance? I don't recall any post from anyone which included that, not even when Stonewall was using their considerable influence as lobbyists, and Trans/rights activists were getting people cancelled right left and centre. There has always been an acknowledgment that the majority of trans people are living their lives in quiet harmony and domesticity.

You are setting up a straw man to start a fight with that one.

there are trans people who do not wish any harm to women, have not encroached on their safe spaces and have not campaigned for anything.

Regrettably their are many more trans activists who do wish harm to women, both verbally and physically and their are many cases you can find via the power of Google to corroborate that. Their are, even now, following the Supreme Court ruling, many trans activists who have clearly and publicly stated that they intend to ignore the law and will carry on invading places they have no rights to be in. We can only hope that they're made an example of when they're taken to court themselves. And as women won't back down or be quiet now, that could come sooner than you think.

Then I would suggest allowing it to stand unchallenged when I say it Mollygo. I appreciate you don't want to hear about my thoughts on why gender dysphoria happens or the thoughts of others in my field but you could easily not read those if it makes you rather uncomfortable.

Mollygo

Sometimes Luminance I get the impression that you only read your own posts. I and others on GN have long acknowledged that there are trans, TW in particular, who do no harm and demand no rights that they are not entitled to have. I and others on GN have also pointed out how much they are at risk from the TW/TRA respect neither female, nor other trans rights. Seems you have missed that, but it never hurts to have it repeated.

I was about to say the same, Mollygo. Quite a number of us have made that exact point, as you say. We all know that there are trans people who do no harm and don't demand access to spaces to which they are not entitled. It's not them we are concerned about, but I notice Luminance hasn't been as quick to condemn the other ones - the very vocal, militant trans lobby who are now hurling insults, abuse and even death threats at 'terfs', as they say. I've literally just read on Twitter (X) a post from one who says they will cry rape if anyone dares to question their right to be in a woman's bathroom. Making a mockery of rape is pretty low by anyone's standards.

Sometimes Luminance I get the impression that you only read your own posts. I and others on GN have long acknowledged that there are trans, TW in particular, who do no harm and demand no rights that they are not entitled to have. I and others on GN have also pointed out how much they are at risk from the TW/TRA respect neither female, nor other trans rights. Seems you have missed that, but it never hurts to have it repeated.

Luminance - your posts are imo increasingly patronising, dramatic, over stated and simply incorrect. Where have you seen anyone suggesting trans people don’t have the same right as women to fight for rights?

The court has ruled. We do know ‘where everyone will stand’. It’s easier to know this, not more difficult, no matter how much you seek to make it so.

It's not virtue signalling on my part, I am not sure you understand the term Mollygo neither is it virtue signalling to point out that there are trans people who do not wish any harm to women, have not encroached on their safe spaces and have not campaigned for anything. If you do not believe that, that is a choice you are incorrect about because it does not come under a protected belief by any means and is covered by equality laws on discrimination instead.

Thank you for the post from Maya Forstater.
I noticed particularly the following statement:
The Supreme Court also referred to the judgment in my case by Sir Akhlaq Choudhury, who found that gender-critical beliefs were “worthy of respect in a democratic society” in my case. He ruled that the GRA does not compel a person to believe something that they do not saying only that a GRC must not be disregarded in circumstances where it was legally relevant.
To me this means that no-one is compelled to use the pronouns selected by a transperson when they are incorrect, particularly he, she and they. If a person chooses to use pronouns relevant to a person's assumed gender that is up to them but they have the right to refuse without fear of prosecution, as was happening in schools.
Good.