dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,907
Yes, since you ask, I am also intolerant of these culture warriors like the raving loonies pictured on this thread calling for decapitation of people with different views.
[News] A woman is a woman.
- Thread starter Leekbrookgull
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Scum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clywp9y70l8o
That’s a hate crime on a par with the summer rioters.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clywp9y70l8o
That’s a hate crime on a par with the summer rioters.
- Oct 17, 2008
- 17,044
Disgusting. Some absolute scum on both sides. I hope he’s prosecuted to the full extent of the law
BrightonCottager
Well-known member
I somehow got into a (largely good-natured) debate about trans issues with some Southampton fans on the way to St Mary's on Saturday. Let's just say that the one I was mainly debating with (actually from Folkestone, which may explain it a bit) was very intolerant. I hope that my explanation of my attitude based on my experience of a friend transitioning persuaded him that it's not as simple as he likes to think.
Have not read all this thread but have just seen a trans judge is going to appeal about recent ruling. May have been mentioned on here but can someone tell me if trans people are wanting that a trans woman with all her bits should be allowed and assume shower in a womans changing room
Have a read of this
The Supreme Court gender ruling gives clarity - now comes the hard part
The judgement provides a clear framework for what equality laws mean, but it remains to be seen what will change.
www.bbc.co.uk
The Clamp
Well-known member
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
I have a great deal of sympathy for those trans women who have gone through bottom surgery, as they specifically are in now an awkward position, but they are in a tiny minority of a small minority.
Surely it is better to work with the EHRC to ensure that the full guidance (note the use of the word interim for the guidance just released) is better equipped to cope with their specific needs than to try and re-litigate. I can't work out on what basis they could in any case.
RandyWanger
Je suis rôti de boeuf
I think the BBC knew what they were doing:
Trans former judge plans to challenge gender ruling at European court
You need to show a bit more tolerance, mate
AstroSloth
Well-known member
- Dec 29, 2020
- 1,748
Doctors call Supreme Court gender ruling ‘scientifically illiterate’
The British Medical Association’s wing of resident doctors voted to criticise the landmark ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex
www.thetimes.com
Hmmm, maybe not so "common sense".
Curious Orange
Punxsatawney Phil
Doctors call Supreme Court gender ruling ‘scientifically illiterate’
The British Medical Association’s wing of resident doctors voted to criticise the landmark ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex
Hmmm, maybe not so "common sense".
The BMA have a bit of form when it comes to making statements that it's members don't necessarily agree with. In all honesty, their statement lost any credibility with me when they started conflating sex with gender, and started wittering on about 'non-binary' as if a someone's personality has any bearing on the sex they are.
BMA stance on Cass review of transgender care ‘has damaged its reputation’
‘Climate of fear’ at British Medical Association after it rejected findings of landmark study, leading member claims
www.theguardian.com
We have for a long time discriminated based on sex because we recognise that a minority of people with penises are a bit pervy and/or rapey, and that it'd be safer for people without penises to have spaces where all people with penises were banned, on the basis that you can't tell just by looking that the person with the penis is pervy/rapey. Clothing, makeup, cosmetic surgery and feelings are not a valid reason to change how we discriminate against the bearer of the penis.
Last edited:
dsr-burnley
Well-known member
- Aug 15, 2014
- 2,907
Exactly. "Common sense" would say that for medical purposes, biological sex is more important than gender. A trans woman still needs prostate cancer checks.Doctors call Supreme Court gender ruling ‘scientifically illiterate’
The British Medical Association’s wing of resident doctors voted to criticise the landmark ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex
Hmmm, maybe not so "common sense".
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,444
the BMA really does know better than this but choose virtue signalling. the ruling does not say there is a binary divide, just what "woman" means for the intents and purposes of Equalities Act. seems everyone wants to read far more into this.Doctors call Supreme Court gender ruling ‘scientifically illiterate’
The British Medical Association’s wing of resident doctors voted to criticise the landmark ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex
Hmmm, maybe not so "common sense".
Bollocks, I have no issue with people identifying themselves however they like, but when they demand that I agree with them, when they demand sporting codes agree with them, when they require safe places agree with them, we end up in court. It is frigging simple, no matter what operations you have done you cannot change your biological sex. That there are a tiny percentage of people where biological sex is indeterminate is not relevant in the vast majority of cases. Gender dysphoria is a real issue and the people suffering from it need help, understanding and respect, but that it has developed into a situation where fully intact males are allowed into female changing rooms to then compete as females in various sports is beyond ridiculous.
In other sex related BMA stories in the times ….
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/bma-destroying-trust-medicine-sex-women-xg5h35bxl red
“Medical mysoginists “ allegedly .
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/healthcare/article/bma-destroying-trust-medicine-sex-women-xg5h35bxl red
“Medical mysoginists “ allegedly .
Last edited:
I don’t think you help the cause of trans people with this argument. You must know that determining sex at birth isn’t complicated . Essentially Willies and vaginas - really easy. Been that way for millennia.
You clearly come from a position of compassion for vulnerable people. Why not direct that in a more sensible way?
- Jul 10, 2003
- 29,056
Over 600 posts on this thread and it's still going. I do wonder how many of those posts are from people that are actually affected by this ruling and how many are by people who have absolutely no personal issues around gender/biological sex, but post 'on behalf' of 'some other' group. I would be stunned if it's as much as 1%/99% but such is 2025.
I'm completely outraged, but obviously, on someone else's behalf
I'm completely outraged, but obviously, on someone else's behalf
Last edited: