I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Re Trump Indictment - I do not see this hurting him in the primary. Already we see most GOP contenders defending him; for this to hurt him someone has to decide to try and weaponise this against him. By defending him, the other candidates are messaging two things: Trumps popularity within the GOP, and that he is being victimised by the Biden admin. Faux victimisation is something the GOP base love, and so (if anything) I would consider this indictment would make him more likely to win the primary rather than lose it. I don't even see the Georgia case changing this; again people overestimate the seriousness of the GOP primary electorate. Unless a court rules him guilty and part of the verdict is a bad on federal office, he will be the nominee. Hell, even with a ban on running for federal office I can see him winning the primary - the GOP base would love the opportunity to tell "liberal judges" to go to hell and argue their democratic right to pick who they want is more important.
I do think this makes the general election harder for Trump but, again, not by much. Maybe a few swing states move lean Democratic.
Mr. Cabinet, worth noting there's still a border dispute between India and China (and perhaps more than one, now I come to think of it).
??
They actually fought a war in the 60s and I think it’s still unresolved
Essentially China wants to protect the heartland - it defines this as including all the headwaters of the Yellow and Yangtze rivers, so the Himalayas are a natural point of conflict with India
I was struggling with the reference to Mr. Cabinet. Previous thread, I assume.
I find Morris's refusal to quote the post he is replying to very tedious.
It is very frustrating. I can't see the logic in not taking the nano second required to press the quote button in order to resume clarity of conversation. Very confusing!
I've mentioned this so many times and get shouted down every time.
I do not understand why they can't just do the polite thing and quote the post they are responding to.
From memory he doesn't quote because when it gets too long and you need to edit the message he always messed it up so he finds it easier not to.
Being honest I can see his viewpoint - I really can't see why Vanilla doesn't just allow you to reference a message id giving it built in threading.
PB used to have message numbers but OGH invariably messed things up by reappearing halfway through the morning and deleting his earlier messages. Quoting on PB is a matter of pressing a button. There is no need for @Morris_Dancer or anyone else to start messing with the quoted material.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
Healthcare choices should be made based on medical criteria not on the patients’ political views
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
Mr. Cabinet, worth noting there's still a border dispute between India and China (and perhaps more than one, now I come to think of it).
??
They actually fought a war in the 60s and I think it’s still unresolved
Essentially China wants to protect the heartland - it defines this as including all the headwaters of the Yellow and Yangtze rivers, so the Himalayas are a natural point of conflict with India
I was struggling with the reference to Mr. Cabinet. Previous thread, I assume.
I find Morris's refusal to quote the post he is replying to very tedious.
It is very frustrating. I can't see the logic in not taking the nano second required to press the quote button in order to resume clarity of conversation. Very confusing!
I've mentioned this so many times and get shouted down every time.
I do not understand why they can't just do the polite thing and quote the post they are responding to.
From memory he doesn't quote because when it gets too long and you need to edit the message he always messed it up so he finds it easier not to.
Being honest I can see his viewpoint - I really can't see why Vanilla doesn't just allow you to reference a message id giving it built in threading.
Mr Dancer is a veteran of the days when we didn't have a quote button and had to use comment numbers to refer to previous comments, but those numbers would change when comments were freed from the spam trap.
Young posters today have no idea how easy they have it these days.
I would have done a thread on Donald Trump's indictment, but I've broken a rib laughing.
Was that broken rib done making pb a laughing stock?
Of course you should have gone with Trump. The biggest political story on the planet.
I want to do a bit more research on it.
I'm still contemplating the betting implications.
IIRC once this indictment is out of the way the grand jury will focus on Georgia.
I suspect that Trump loses a tranche more of the independents. Even just being charged. It's one thing being thought a bit of a rogue, forgivable because he is going to Drain The Swamp. It's another to have an address in that swamp.
I'm trying to find the link which says if he's convicted in Georgia, then he cannot stand for election in Georgia.
Those are 16 electoral votes he needs to win if he wants to win back the White House.
If convicted he can stand (and take office if he wins) but cannot vote in Florida, I believe.
But he may not be able to be on the ballot in Georgia.
What's to stop other Democrat governed swing states changing their rules to prohibit convicts standing? It seems a reasonable measure tbh.
Changing the rules for an obvious partisan reason undermines the system
Not to mention that Democrats have been campaigning for felons to have the vote.
Mr. Cabinet, worth noting there's still a border dispute between India and China (and perhaps more than one, now I come to think of it).
??
They actually fought a war in the 60s and I think it’s still unresolved
Essentially China wants to protect the heartland - it defines this as including all the headwaters of the Yellow and Yangtze rivers, so the Himalayas are a natural point of conflict with India
I was struggling with the reference to Mr. Cabinet. Previous thread, I assume.
I find Morris's refusal to quote the post he is replying to very tedious.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
Healthcare choices should be made based on medical criteria not on the patients’ political views
Anything by else is unconscionable and unethical
In this scenario, it would be the patient making a healthcare choice based on their own political views.
Such options are not unknown - with dentist and GP I/family members have been offered an appointment today with AN Other or an appointment next week with regular GP/dentist. If you're flexible in who you see, you can get seen sooner. If you're not, then you have to wait for a gap in the schedule of the person you want to see.
I wouldn't advocate punishment here (which is perhaps what you're picking up, the 'very back of the queue' bit - i.e. if someone wants a same sex GP then they should get the next available appointment with a same sex GP. But that may be later than the next available appointment with an opposite sex GP and that's ok. Otherwise you're advocating bumping someone else, who wasn't fussy, down the waiting list.
God no surely Sunak isn’t that stupid . Knighting a wife beater ! I would be shocked if that Times story is correct . It would be insane to knight Stanley Johnson.
Even if he weren't one (and it is an allegation as he has never been convicted), what on earth is the reason for knighting him?
To be fair, he has, as HYUFD says, a very substantial environmental and animal welfare record as an MEP and since (and disagrees with Boris on Brexit, incidentally). If we put the allegation on one side since it's not been tested, there have been much worse choices.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a gay woman. That doesn't mean they have a right to know the doctor's private life.
So should people be able to request a private exam from a same sex doctor?
A female fifty-something GP friend who works in student health always uses a chaperone for intimate examinations, which are a fair bit of her practice.
That's only sensible to protect her interests against malicious complaints.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a gay woman. That doesn't mean they have a right to know the doctor's private life.
There are rules to protect patients (and professionals frankly) by giving women the right to a same sex doctor for intimate examinations.
Starmer did of course have a substantial career ‘before politics’. Which is more than Fishy Rishi had.
@RobDotHutton I understand why Number 10 is madly briefing this out, but can we interrogate the idea that Rishi Sunak is a "tech bro"? Doesn't this imply some level of technical ability, rather than simply a flat in Santa Monica and a weakness for expensive electronic tat?
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
Ah, the great Daily Mail modus operandi in its pure state.
If you read beyond the pitchforks & burning torches headline, the piece itself says patients can request a same sex member of staff in the cases of intimate examinations or if they have been a victim of sexual violence.
That would mean having to read the Mail! I was reacting to @DougSeal ’s post
As always with this topic it’s a question of finding a balance between the rights of trans people to live their best life and the rights of women (and men).
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
3. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
5. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
6. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
Re Trump Indictment - I do not see this hurting him in the primary. Already we see most GOP contenders defending him; for this to hurt him someone has to decide to try and weaponise this against him. By defending him, the other candidates are messaging two things: Trumps popularity within the GOP, and that he is being victimised by the Biden admin. Faux victimisation is something the GOP base love, and so (if anything) I would consider this indictment would make him more likely to win the primary rather than lose it. I don't even see the Georgia case changing this; again people overestimate the seriousness of the GOP primary electorate. Unless a court rules him guilty and part of the verdict is a bad on federal office, he will be the nominee. Hell, even with a ban on running for federal office I can see him winning the primary - the GOP base would love the opportunity to tell "liberal judges" to go to hell and argue their democratic right to pick who they want is more important.
I do think this makes the general election harder for Trump but, again, not by much. Maybe a few swing states move lean Democratic.
Liberal Judges??? - we are talking Florida!!!
The indictment was issued by a grand jury of twenty of Trump's fellow Floridians.
And note Trump spent his entire first Presidential campaign calling for the indictment of his opponent.
Starmer did of course have a substantial career ‘before politics’. Which is more than Fishy Rishi had.
@RobDotHutton I understand why Number 10 is madly briefing this out, but can we interrogate the idea that Rishi Sunak is a "tech bro"? Doesn't this imply some level of technical ability, rather than simply a flat in Santa Monica and a weakness for expensive electronic tat?
Just so long as he doesn't need to use a contactless card ...
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
Not just trans women. Cis male obstetricians and gynaecologists are disappearing, especially in America, where that branch of medicine has become increasingly feminised in recent years. Midwives are almost all women.
That’s a trend across most medical fields to be honest. But male ob/gyns were always a bit weird
Well nobody can say Blair was a glory hunter, he was a Labour candidate in 1983 when Labour got its lowest ever voteshare since WW2.
Though he did win his seat of Sedgefield unlike Labour under Corbyn in 2019, after having lost in the Beaconsfield by election to the Tories the previous year. One thing Sunak and Starmer have not had unlike Blair in Beaconsfield (and indeed Cameron and Boris who both lost seats to Labour before getting Witney and Henley) is experience of personal defeat in an election campaign which would toughen them up.
While both competent they both got shoehorned into safe seats straight away in 2015, Starmer in Holborn and St Pancras and Sunak in Richmond and I think that may show for both of them in the general election next year.
Fair point, and one about which I’ve wondered. Starmer did of course have a substantial career ‘before politics’. Which is more than Fishy Rishi had.
Rishi worked at Goldman Sachs and started his own hedge fund and probably earnt more before politics even than Starmer did as DPP. Neither dd the SPAD, researcher route which is a plus, they both had substantial non politics careers before becoming MPs.
However on the downside that also means neither have much experience of politics at lower levels, neither Sunak or Starmer even stood for their parties for local council before getting their safe seats in 2015
As for trans loos I would have thought that in 99.98% of the time it doesn't matter at all who goes where and I'm not at all convinced that the 0.02% of predatory loo-users are not all genders, flavours, and whatnot.
Starmer did of course have a substantial career ‘before politics’. Which is more than Fishy Rishi had.
@RobDotHutton I understand why Number 10 is madly briefing this out, but can we interrogate the idea that Rishi Sunak is a "tech bro"? Doesn't this imply some level of technical ability, rather than simply a flat in Santa Monica and a weakness for expensive electronic tat?
They really are desperate if this is what they're going with.
AI appears to have potentially significant benefits in many areas. It is zero surprise that Google et al want to restrict public use of it, so that they can preserve their commercial edge. And zero surprise also that Rishi Sunak wants to do everything in his power to help them.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
5. The guidance appears to prioritise the wishes of its staff over the wishes of its patients. This is not what the law requires and this guidance appears to be in breach of it. Nor is there any need to reveal the fact of a healthcare worker having a GRC. All that is required is that when a patient expresses a wish to be treated by someone of the same sex for that to be done. It is not necessary to breach the privacy of someone with a GRC do this. It is perfectly true that a patient has no right to be told whether a medical worker is trans or not. But that does not entitle the NHS to trick the patient into giving consent.
6. Denying someone health treatment or delaying it because they have not agreed to treatment by someone of the opposite sex would amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and is, needless to say, unlawful.
7. The document says in various places that the comfort and safety of the trans worker should be prioritised over the wishes of the patient. This is wrong. The latter risks assault - a criminal offence. The former does not. A health worker should put the patient's interests first. Similarly, the document says that only a clinical need is a justification for asking for a health worker of the same sex. Again, this is legally wrong.
8. Finally, it is worth saying that the EA needs to be interpreted in light of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR. This document completely ignores this.
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
Good luck with that.....virtue signalling and ad homs is what you'll probably get.
However, I am reminded of Eleanor Roosevelt's remark that "great minds discuss ideas, medium minds discuss events and small minds discuss people"....which is why I leave the ad homs to bask in their own deluded sense of superiority.....happy in their "Likes".
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Yes, this is very silly. Anyone should be able to use the gents. I was at the boat race one year and was queuing to get into the gents at a pub when a lady came out being very apologetic (long queue for the ladies etc.), but really, us men don't care. And, actually, in situations like that, when it's very busy, it doesn't really matter because there's loads of people around.
We have different toilets for the protection of women. Personally, I'm of the view that until a person has had the surgery to remove their male anatomy, they should be considered a man. However, if they are presenting as a woman and wouldn't alarm anyone, then I don't see too much of an issue with toilets.
The doctor situation is tricky. I can fully understand why a woman would want to see a female doctor, so I don't think it's unreasonable that a female patient should be able to demand that. I think patients should be prioritised over the feelings of some doctors.
What happens when the only gynaecologist on duty is male, or andrologist is female? And there is something like a suspected ectopic pregnancy, or torsion of testes that cannot wait?
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Yes, this is very silly. Anyone should be able to use the gents. I was at the boat race one year and was queuing to get into the gents at a pub when a lady came out being very apologetic (long queue for the ladies etc.), but really, us men don't care. And, actually, in situations like that, when it's very busy, it doesn't really matter because there's loads of people around.
We have different toilets for the protection of women. Personally, I'm of the view that until a person has had the surgery to remove their male anatomy, they should be considered a man. However, if they are presenting as a woman and wouldn't alarm anyone, then I don't see too much of an issue with toilets.
The doctor situation is tricky. I can fully understand why a woman would want to see a female doctor, so I don't think it's unreasonable that a female patient should be able to demand that. I think patients should be prioritised over the feelings of some doctors.
I find the idea that we have "different toilets for the protection of women" quite an interesting act of historical revisionism. Modern society has gendered toilets (and changing rooms) because men didn't want to share these facilities with women - this really started during the period when women entered the workplace and the public sphere more (with greater introduction of public pools and parks). This also coincided with a lot of the bad "science" around race and sex and the idea of women as the "weaker sex", alongside Victorian prudishness. The idea of single-sex spaces as "protecting women from men" is a rather modern one, and has it's roots in actual feminist practice (typically lesbian feminist spaces) and then adopted by refuges and such. And those spaces typically (although not always) accepted transwomen as women (as has British law for all of my lifetime).
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
Good luck with that.....virtue signalling and ad homs is what you'll probably get.
However, I am reminded of Eleanor Roosevelt's remark that "great minds discuss ideas, medium minds discuss events and small minds discuss people"....which is why I leave the ad homs to bask in their own deluded sense of superiority.....happy in their "Likes".
Great to see a sense of superiority that isn't deluded.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
Which is why chaperones are used when doing intimate examinations.
It is as much or more for protection of staff as patients.
Absolutely
But what we need to address is that both trans people and women have rights and we need to learn to accommodate each other. The answer will be a balance between the two not an absolutist position one way or the other
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Nothing new. There used to be the South London Hospital for Women on Clapham Common, with all female staff. Campaigning against closing it in the Eighties was quite a feminist cause.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a gay woman. That doesn't mean they have a right to know the doctor's private life.
Safeguarding means that women have a right to be treated by a woman for intimate exams, and for good reason too.
If a man wants to be called a woman, that should be her right, but it should not violate safeguarding. If a woman wants to be treated by a woman, as is her right, then she should be able to be treated by an actual woman.
Trans people should be accorded all the respect they are due and if it doesn't violate safeguarding then using people's preferred name or pronoun is just good manners.
But when it comes to safeguarding, then safety should come first. And if a woman is requesting to be treated by a woman for safeguarding reasons, then she should be treated by an actual woman, or as others might say a "cis" woman.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
5. The guidance appears to prioritise the wishes of its staff over the wishes of its patients. This is not what the law requires and this guidance appears to be in breach of it. Nor is there any need to reveal the fact of a healthcare worker having a GRC. All that is required is that when a patient expresses a wish to be treated by someone of the same sex for that to be done. It is not necessary to breach the privacy of someone with a GRC do this. It is perfectly true that a patient has no right to be told whether a medical worker is trans or not. But that does not entitle the NHS to trick the patient into giving consent.
6. Denying someone health treatment or delaying it because they have not agreed to treatment by someone of the opposite sex would amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and is, needless to say, unlawful.
7. The document says in various places that the comfort and safety of the trans worker should be prioritised over the wishes of the patient. This is wrong. The latter risks assault - a criminal offence. The former does not. A health worker should put the patient's interests first. Similarly, the document says that only a clinical need is a justification for asking for a health worker of the same sex. Again, this is legally wrong.
8. Finally, it is worth saying that the EA needs to be interpreted in light of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR. This document completely ignores this.
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
If patients do not have to follow the EA would they be able to deny treatment if the doctor wasn't white, and still expect quick service? I thought that a patient has the right to say "I don't want to be treated by x person" without giving a reason, but that doesn't then mean that they can expect to be seen as quickly (especially with the resource issues the NHS currently have).
Whatever you think of Rishi, you can never accuse him of being too big for his boots....
If it weren't indicative of levels of competence and cunning that are utterly beyond the tories I'd swear he wore the comedy shitkickers to provoke a memestorm to distract from the fact he hasn't, can't and won't STOP THE BOATS.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
Good luck with that.....virtue signalling and ad homs is what you'll probably get.
However, I am reminded of Eleanor Roosevelt's remark that "great minds discuss ideas, medium minds discuss events and small minds discuss people"....which is why I leave the ad homs to bask in their own deluded sense of superiority.....happy in their "Likes".
great minds discuss ideas medium minds discuss events small minds discuss people carlotta copies and pastes
You should start charging me rent for the space I'm occupying in your head....
God no surely Sunak isn’t that stupid . Knighting a wife beater ! I would be shocked if that Times story is correct . It would be insane to knight Stanley Johnson.
Even if he weren't one (and it is an allegation as he has never been convicted), what on earth is the reason for knighting him?
The excuse is he is a former MEP
The reason he was nominated is that he’s Boris’s Dad
The reason why he is getting it is because Rishi (understandably) doesn’t want to set a precedent of rejecting a previous PM’s nominations
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
It turns out they got their advice from this organisation:
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
As I mentioned above (but have no idea of the stats) I'm guessing that "men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse" forms a teeny-tiny proportion of transgressions in loos across the land and you are then looking at guarding against other transgressions which make up the balance of such incidents.
My Trans Statement:
I have a huge amount of sympathy for trans people who don't want gatekeepers to their gender and for whom a trans woman is a woman and a trans man is a man. I have a huge amount of sympathy for non-trans people, most often biological birth women who want to protect elements of their activities from potential abuse (eg sportsnprisons).
As far as I can see at this point there is a huge difficulty in reconciling these positions, in particular at the extremes, and I'm glad I'm not the one doing it.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Yes, this is very silly. Anyone should be able to use the gents. I was at the boat race one year and was queuing to get into the gents at a pub when a lady came out being very apologetic (long queue for the ladies etc.), but really, us men don't care. And, actually, in situations like that, when it's very busy, it doesn't really matter because there's loads of people around.
We have different toilets for the protection of women. Personally, I'm of the view that until a person has had the surgery to remove their male anatomy, they should be considered a man. However, if they are presenting as a woman and wouldn't alarm anyone, then I don't see too much of an issue with toilets.
The doctor situation is tricky. I can fully understand why a woman would want to see a female doctor, so I don't think it's unreasonable that a female patient should be able to demand that. I think patients should be prioritised over the feelings of some doctors.
What happens when the only gynaecologist on duty is male, or andrologist is female? And there is something like a suspected ectopic pregnancy, or torsion of testes that cannot wait?
A patient can always refuse treatment if they want. But it’s up to them.
“You have the right to demand this. The likely consequence will be you will die. Do you want to exercise your rights?”
God no surely Sunak isn’t that stupid . Knighting a wife beater ! I would be shocked if that Times story is correct . It would be insane to knight Stanley Johnson.
Even if he weren't one (and it is an allegation as he has never been convicted), what on earth is the reason for knighting him?
The excuse is he is a former MEP
The reason he was nominated is that he’s Boris’s Dad
The reason why he is getting it is because Rishi (understandably) doesn’t want to set a precedent of rejecting a previous PM’s nominations
I know that Boris has a strongly rebellious, nonchalant streak, which has served him well to be fair, but when he still has political ambitions, I am very surprised he didn't tell Stanley Johnson to do one. It must mean a lot to him to do something so damaging.
Whatever you think of Rishi, you can never accuse him of being too big for his boots....
If it weren't indicative of levels of competence and cunning that are utterly beyond the tories I'd swear he wore the comedy shitkickers to provoke a memestorm to distract from the fact he hasn't, can't and won't STOP THE BOATS.
I'd be quite happy if he stopped the boots
Das Boot, the gritty story of a tiny, sub-par commander prowling the Channel in search of photo ops.
Labour has rowed back on its pledge to invest £28bn a year in green industries if it wins power, saying it needs to be "responsible" with the public finances.
In 2021 Labour promised to invest £28bn a year until 2030 in green projects.
Instead shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said she would now ramp up investment over time from a 2024 election win, reaching £28bn a year by 2027.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
'@JustinWelby There is no justification for any province of the Anglican Communion to support the criminalisation of LGBTQ people: not in our resolutions, our teachings, or the Gospel we share.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
5. The guidance appears to prioritise the wishes of its staff over the wishes of its patients. This is not what the law requires and this guidance appears to be in breach of it. Nor is there any need to reveal the fact of a healthcare worker having a GRC. All that is required is that when a patient expresses a wish to be treated by someone of the same sex for that to be done. It is not necessary to breach the privacy of someone with a GRC do this. It is perfectly true that a patient has no right to be told whether a medical worker is trans or not. But that does not entitle the NHS to trick the patient into giving consent.
6. Denying someone health treatment or delaying it because they have not agreed to treatment by someone of the opposite sex would amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and is, needless to say, unlawful.
7. The document says in various places that the comfort and safety of the trans worker should be prioritised over the wishes of the patient. This is wrong. The latter risks assault - a criminal offence. The former does not. A health worker should put the patient's interests first. Similarly, the document says that only a clinical need is a justification for asking for a health worker of the same sex. Again, this is legally wrong.
8. Finally, it is worth saying that the EA needs to be interpreted in light of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR. This document completely ignores this.
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
On the GRC, what happens if the clinician has not disclosed their birth sex to their employer? I don't believe they would be under any obligation to do so (I may be wrong).
IANAL and I have not read the document - commenting only on the interaction with GRC for clinicians in possessions of one. I do have some experience neogiating the legalities of GRCs on the patient side for data analysis (essentially, until very recently under legal exceptions granted for the Cass review, data pre- and post- legal transition cannot be legally linked). The document goes wider than those with a GRC, I accept (and I don't comment on that).
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
There is no issue with women, or transmen, using the male toilets.
There can be an issue with men, or transwomen, using the female ones.
That is the difference. Same with sport, there is no problem with a woman (if she wants) from competing in the male category, there is a problem with a man (if he wants) competing in the female category.
Women have single-sex spaces for safeguarding reasons. Men by and large don't. That's a huge differential.
God no surely Sunak isn’t that stupid . Knighting a wife beater ! I would be shocked if that Times story is correct . It would be insane to knight Stanley Johnson.
Even if he weren't one (and it is an allegation as he has never been convicted), what on earth is the reason for knighting him?
The excuse is he is a former MEP
The reason he was nominated is that he’s Boris’s Dad
The reason why he is getting it is because Rishi (understandably) doesn’t want to set a precedent of rejecting a previous PM’s nominations
I know that Boris has a strongly rebellious, nonchalant streak, which has served him well to be fair, but when he still has political ambitions, I am very surprised he didn't tell Stanley Johnson to do one. It must mean a lot to him to do something so damaging.
The conspiracy theory is that Boris hates his father and did the knighthood thing so that the wife-beating allegations would be all over the media.
I may have missed this in last night threads, but did the "Free Speech" brigade defend Prof Grace Lavery against the environment of academic censorship created by people who most argue about academic censorship?
Labour has rowed back on its pledge to invest £28bn a year in green industries if it wins power, saying it needs to be "responsible" with the public finances.
In 2021 Labour promised to invest £28bn a year until 2030 in green projects.
Instead shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said she would now ramp up investment over time from a 2024 election win, reaching £28bn a year by 2027.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
To be fair, I am reliably informed that using a urinal without a penis requires a good degree of skill and is not overly comfortable, so there is something in that
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
As I mentioned above (but have no idea of the stats) I'm guessing that "men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse" forms a teeny-tiny proportion of transgressions in loos across the land and you are then looking at guarding against other transgressions which make up the balance of such incidents.
My Trans Statement:
I have a huge amount of sympathy for trans people who don't want gatekeepers to their gender and for whom a trans woman is a woman and a trans man is a man. I have a huge amount of sympathy for non-trans people, most often biological birth women who want to protect elements of their activities from potential abuse (eg sportsnprisons).
As far as I can see at this point there is a huge difficulty in reconciling these positions, in particular at the extremes, and I'm glad I'm not the one doing it.
That's it.
I struggle to see the difficulty in this area. I see two main things as problematical with allowing biological men to use women's loos. 1. How invested are they in 'being' a woman as opposed to potentially indulging a kink - there's no distinction 2. Willies Allowing access post surgery (following a long medical process) removes both these issues, and I think it's then right and fair. Of course, sport is a totally different issue.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
Single sex spaces are already legislated for in the law.
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
I would have done a thread on Donald Trump's indictment, but I've broken a rib laughing.
Was that broken rib done making pb a laughing stock?
Of course you should have gone with Trump. The biggest political story on the planet.
I want to do a bit more research on it.
I'm still contemplating the betting implications.
IIRC once this indictment is out of the way the grand jury will focus on Georgia.
I suspect that Trump loses a tranche more of the independents. Even just being charged. It's one thing being thought a bit of a rogue, forgivable because he is going to Drain The Swamp. It's another to have an address in that swamp.
I'm trying to find the link which says if he's convicted in Georgia, then he cannot stand for election in Georgia.
Those are 16 electoral votes he needs to win if he wants to win back the White House.
If convicted he can stand (and take office if he wins) but cannot vote in Florida, I believe.
But he may not be able to be on the ballot in Georgia.
What's to stop other Democrat governed swing states changing their rules to prohibit convicts standing? It seems a reasonable measure tbh.
Changing the rules for an obvious partisan reason undermines the system
It does... but we also have the reality that the Republicans do this every day of the week, and twice on Thursdays.
Austerity Reeves explaining this morning that shes dropped Labours commitment to spend £28bn/year on tackling climate change from day one of the next Labour govt because of her 'fiscal rules'
Only radical policy left has been ditched
The timing of the announcement, on the same week smoke from vast wildfires cloud large parts of North America, is quite something
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
5. The guidance appears to prioritise the wishes of its staff over the wishes of its patients. This is not what the law requires and this guidance appears to be in breach of it. Nor is there any need to reveal the fact of a healthcare worker having a GRC. All that is required is that when a patient expresses a wish to be treated by someone of the same sex for that to be done. It is not necessary to breach the privacy of someone with a GRC do this. It is perfectly true that a patient has no right to be told whether a medical worker is trans or not. But that does not entitle the NHS to trick the patient into giving consent.
6. Denying someone health treatment or delaying it because they have not agreed to treatment by someone of the opposite sex would amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and is, needless to say, unlawful.
7. The document says in various places that the comfort and safety of the trans worker should be prioritised over the wishes of the patient. This is wrong. The latter risks assault - a criminal offence. The former does not. A health worker should put the patient's interests first. Similarly, the document says that only a clinical need is a justification for asking for a health worker of the same sex. Again, this is legally wrong.
8. Finally, it is worth saying that the EA needs to be interpreted in light of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR. This document completely ignores this.
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
If patients do not have to follow the EA would they be able to deny treatment if the doctor wasn't white, and still expect quick service? I thought that a patient has the right to say "I don't want to be treated by x person" without giving a reason, but that doesn't then mean that they can expect to be seen as quickly (especially with the resource issues the NHS currently have).
The NHS has an obligation to treat according to clinical need and resources. It cannot deny a patient treatment on the grounds that it disagrees with a patient's views, on the grounds of race, sex etc.,. If it denies or delays treatment on the basis of one of the 9 protected characteristics under the EA, then it risks carrying out unlawful direct or indirect discrimination.
It is worth noting that the Good Law Project recently brought a case against the NHS stating that it was discriminating against trans patients because of the delays in giving them treatment. It lost that case, in part because the evidence was that the NHS had increased the money available for this area but there were simply not the health workers willing to work in this area. But a lack of resources does not (necessarily) amount to discrimination.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
It turns out they got their advice from this organisation:
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
Single sex spaces are already legislated for in the law.
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
To be fair, I am reliably informed that using a urinal without a penis requires a good degree of skill and is not overly comfortable, so there is something in that
God no surely Sunak isn’t that stupid . Knighting a wife beater ! I would be shocked if that Times story is correct . It would be insane to knight Stanley Johnson.
Even if he weren't one (and it is an allegation as he has never been convicted), what on earth is the reason for knighting him?
The excuse is he is a former MEP
The reason he was nominated is that he’s Boris’s Dad
The reason why he is getting it is because Rishi (understandably) doesn’t want to set a precedent of rejecting a previous PM’s nominations
Standards be damned, eh!
The honours system is an utter disgrace, I'm afraid.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
To be fair, I am reliably informed that using a urinal without a penis requires a good degree of skill and is not overly comfortable, so there is something in that
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
There is no issue with women, or transmen, using the male toilets.
There can be an issue with men, or transwomen, using the female ones.
That is the difference. Same with sport, there is no problem with a woman (if she wants) from competing in the male category, there is a problem with a man (if he wants) competing in the female category.
Women have single-sex spaces for safeguarding reasons. Men by and large don't. That's a huge differential.
You're forgetting that middle-class white men are by far the most discriminated against group in the nation, won't somebody think of them etc.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
5. The guidance appears to prioritise the wishes of its staff over the wishes of its patients. This is not what the law requires and this guidance appears to be in breach of it. Nor is there any need to reveal the fact of a healthcare worker having a GRC. All that is required is that when a patient expresses a wish to be treated by someone of the same sex for that to be done. It is not necessary to breach the privacy of someone with a GRC do this. It is perfectly true that a patient has no right to be told whether a medical worker is trans or not. But that does not entitle the NHS to trick the patient into giving consent.
6. Denying someone health treatment or delaying it because they have not agreed to treatment by someone of the opposite sex would amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and is, needless to say, unlawful.
7. The document says in various places that the comfort and safety of the trans worker should be prioritised over the wishes of the patient. This is wrong. The latter risks assault - a criminal offence. The former does not. A health worker should put the patient's interests first. Similarly, the document says that only a clinical need is a justification for asking for a health worker of the same sex. Again, this is legally wrong.
8. Finally, it is worth saying that the EA needs to be interpreted in light of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR. This document completely ignores this.
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
The government is not alone in thinking itself above the law.
In fact, that view seems to be quite widespread, among people in positions of authority.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
Single sex spaces are already legislated for in the law.
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
Are they? My initial googling only lead me to this (there's that Badenoch woman again):
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
Single sex spaces are already legislated for in the law.
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
Plus you are evidently not of the trans women are women persuasion.
Thought exercise for you: what if they are (in law)?
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
Healthcare choices should be made based on medical criteria not on the patients’ political views
Anything by else is unconscionable and unethical
In this scenario, it would be the patient making a healthcare choice based on their own political views.
Such options are not unknown - with dentist and GP I/family members have been offered an appointment today with AN Other or an appointment next week with regular GP/dentist. If you're flexible in who you see, you can get seen sooner. If you're not, then you have to wait for a gap in the schedule of the person you want to see.
I wouldn't advocate punishment here (which is perhaps what you're picking up, the 'very back of the queue' bit - i.e. if someone wants a same sex GP then they should get the next available appointment with a same sex GP. But that may be later than the next available appointment with an opposite sex GP and that's ok. Otherwise you're advocating bumping someone else, who wasn't fussy, down the waiting list.
Your approach is fine. That wasn’t what @eek was suggesting
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
There is no issue with women, or transmen, using the male toilets.
There can be an issue with men, or transwomen, using the female ones.
That is the difference. Same with sport, there is no problem with a woman (if she wants) from competing in the male category, there is a problem with a man (if he wants) competing in the female category.
Women have single-sex spaces for safeguarding reasons. Men by and large don't. That's a huge differential.
That isn't historically why women have single-sex spaces but, even if it was, I don't understand what the issue is by letting transwomen use women's toilets. If the argument is cismen will dress up as women they can do that regardless of which bathrooms transwomen use, and if the argument is transwomen are somehow statistically more predatory than show me the data (there isn't data to suggest this).
Also if cismen are these predatory monsters why is it safe to allow transwomen and transmen to share spaces with them? With acts of sexual assault against transpeople being quite high and violence against all LGBT+ increasing (typically at the hands of cismen) surely there is a safeguarding issue there? There is also the use of corrective sexual assault - at transpeople and LGBT+ people (again, typically at the hands of cismen). If safeguarding of at risk populations is the most important thing then nobody should be sharing spaces with cismen, who are the perpetrators of most sexual violence. But, again, people are focussing specifically on transwomen only - which just hints at transmisogyny and nothing else.
And the reason I mention transmen is the account given of a woman saying a transman shouldn't use the women's bathroom in an area where, by law, people were forced to use the toilet of their assigned sex at birth - something many GC people argue for.
These are currently the only two Republican candidates with any respect for the law. Note that both also seem aware - in sharp contrast to their colleagues - that no one other than the grand jury has yet seen the basis for the charges.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4041828-what-2024-gop-candidates-are-saying-about-trumps-indictment/ Chris Christie: “We don’t get our news from Trump’s Truth Social account. Let’s see what the facts are when any possible indictment is released,” Christie said in a Twitter post. “As I have said before, no one is above the law, no matter how much they wish they were. We will have more to say when the facts are revealed.”
and Asa Hutchinson: ...“With the news that Donald Trump has been indicted for the second time, our country finds itself in a position that weakens our democracy,” Hutchinson said in a statement, adding that “Donald Trump’s actions—from his willful disregard for the Constitution to his disrespect for the rule of law—should not define our nation or the Republican Party.” “This is a sad day for our country. While Donald Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the ongoing criminal proceedings will be a major distraction,” he continued “This reaffirms the need for Donald Trump to respect the office and end his campaign.”
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
To be fair, I am reliably informed that using a urinal without a penis requires a good degree of skill and is not overly comfortable, so there is something in that
Judging by the condition of some toilets, some men seem to find it almost impossible to use a urinal, even in possession of a penis.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
To be fair, I am reliably informed that using a urinal without a penis requires a good degree of skill and is not overly comfortable, so there is something in that
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
Single sex spaces are already legislated for in the law.
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
Plus you are evidently not of the trans women are women persuasion.
Thought exercise for you: what if they are (in law)?
Pre-op trans women are not women in law as far as I am aware.
If they have a GRC then they have a female gender, yes, but not the female sex and sex does exist in law.
Single-sex spaces are not single-gender spaces. If the exclusion exists based on sex, not gender, then gender ought to be irrelevant should it not?
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
Single sex spaces are already legislated for in the law.
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
Plus you are evidently not of the trans women are women persuasion.
Thought exercise for you: what if they are (in law)?
Pre-op trans women are not women in law as far as I am aware.
They have a female gender, yes, but not the female sex and sex does exist in law.
Single-sex spaces are not single-gender spaces. If the exclusion exists based on sex, not gender, then gender ought to be irrelevant should it not?
What is the law? As mentioned I could only find this:
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
Which is why chaperones are used when doing intimate examinations.
It is as much or more for protection of staff as patients.
Absolutely
But what we need to address is that both trans people and women have rights and we need to learn to accommodate each other. The answer will be a balance between the two not an absolutist position one way or the other
So you are suggestion a compromise based on facts and the law? Heretic!
I may have missed this in last night threads, but did the "Free Speech" brigade defend Prof Grace Lavery against the environment of academic censorship created by people who most argue about academic censorship?
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
5. The guidance appears to prioritise the wishes of its staff over the wishes of its patients. This is not what the law requires and this guidance appears to be in breach of it. Nor is there any need to reveal the fact of a healthcare worker having a GRC. All that is required is that when a patient expresses a wish to be treated by someone of the same sex for that to be done. It is not necessary to breach the privacy of someone with a GRC do this. It is perfectly true that a patient has no right to be told whether a medical worker is trans or not. But that does not entitle the NHS to trick the patient into giving consent.
6. Denying someone health treatment or delaying it because they have not agreed to treatment by someone of the opposite sex would amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and is, needless to say, unlawful.
7. The document says in various places that the comfort and safety of the trans worker should be prioritised over the wishes of the patient. This is wrong. The latter risks assault - a criminal offence. The former does not. A health worker should put the patient's interests first. Similarly, the document says that only a clinical need is a justification for asking for a health worker of the same sex. Again, this is legally wrong.
8. Finally, it is worth saying that the EA needs to be interpreted in light of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR. This document completely ignores this.
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
Legal advice is for wimps.
This is more "the will of the Prince has the force of law."
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
It is a simple and undeniable fact that there is zero mechanism within the theory of self-id to prevent it being used by men to access women's spaces legally with a view to comitting sexual assault. This is why we see complaining about 'obsessions' etc., rather than counterarguments, because there aren't any.
If I understand your question correctly, a presurgery ftm transsexual wouldn’t have to use the women's loos, they would also have dispensation to use the disabled wc.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
Also worth noting that if a trans doctor is in possession of a gender recognition certificate then it would be illegal for the NHS to disclose their previous gender to a patient.
I hate to bring the law into this but that guidance by the NHS - and I have read it (not the Daily Mail article) - is hopelessly confused on the actual law and its advice is wrong in some key respects.
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
2. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
3. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
4. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
5. The guidance appears to prioritise the wishes of its staff over the wishes of its patients. This is not what the law requires and this guidance appears to be in breach of it. Nor is there any need to reveal the fact of a healthcare worker having a GRC. All that is required is that when a patient expresses a wish to be treated by someone of the same sex for that to be done. It is not necessary to breach the privacy of someone with a GRC do this. It is perfectly true that a patient has no right to be told whether a medical worker is trans or not. But that does not entitle the NHS to trick the patient into giving consent.
6. Denying someone health treatment or delaying it because they have not agreed to treatment by someone of the opposite sex would amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and is, needless to say, unlawful.
7. The document says in various places that the comfort and safety of the trans worker should be prioritised over the wishes of the patient. This is wrong. The latter risks assault - a criminal offence. The former does not. A health worker should put the patient's interests first. Similarly, the document says that only a clinical need is a justification for asking for a health worker of the same sex. Again, this is legally wrong.
8. Finally, it is worth saying that the EA needs to be interpreted in light of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR. This document completely ignores this.
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
If patients do not have to follow the EA would they be able to deny treatment if the doctor wasn't white, and still expect quick service? I thought that a patient has the right to say "I don't want to be treated by x person" without giving a reason, but that doesn't then mean that they can expect to be seen as quickly (especially with the resource issues the NHS currently have).
The NHS has an obligation to treat according to clinical need and resources. It cannot deny a patient treatment on the grounds that it disagrees with a patient's views, on the grounds of race, sex etc.,. If it denies or delays treatment on the basis of one of the 9 protected characteristics under the EA, then it risks carrying out unlawful direct or indirect discrimination.
It is worth noting that the Good Law Project recently brought a case against the NHS stating that it was discriminating against trans patients because of the delays in giving them treatment. It lost that case, in part because the evidence was that the NHS had increased the money available for this area but there were simply not the health workers willing to work in this area. But a lack of resources does not (necessarily) amount to discrimination.
So if a patient says "I want proof my doctor is not trans" and this leads to doctors going "I will not provide proof that will satisfy you, and therefore you have to wait for a doctor who will" and that leads to delays in treatment - that is not discriminatory.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
To be fair, I am reliably informed that using a urinal without a penis requires a good degree of skill and is not overly comfortable, so there is something in that
Judging by the condition of some toilets, some men seem to find it almost impossible to use a urinal, even in possession of a penis.
I can only assume there are large numbers of trans men without the correct tackle/experience who are responsible for this...
That isn't historically why women have single-sex spaces but, even if it was, I don't understand what the issue is by letting transwomen use women's toilets. If the argument is cismen will dress up as women they can do that regardless of which bathrooms transwomen use, and if the argument is transwomen are somehow statistically more predatory than show me the data (there isn't data to suggest this).
What you call "transwomen" ARE a subset of men who dress up as women.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
There is no issue with women, or transmen, using the male toilets.
There can be an issue with men, or transwomen, using the female ones.
That is the difference. Same with sport, there is no problem with a woman (if she wants) from competing in the male category, there is a problem with a man (if he wants) competing in the female category.
Women have single-sex spaces for safeguarding reasons. Men by and large don't. That's a huge differential.
That isn't historically why women have single-sex spaces but, even if it was, I don't understand what the issue is by letting transwomen use women's toilets. If the argument is cismen will dress up as women they can do that regardless of which bathrooms transwomen use, and if the argument is transwomen are somehow statistically more predatory than show me the data (there isn't data to suggest this).
Also if cismen are these predatory monsters why is it safe to allow transwomen and transmen to share spaces with them? With acts of sexual assault against transpeople being quite high and violence against all LGBT+ increasing (typically at the hands of cismen) surely there is a safeguarding issue there? There is also the use of corrective sexual assault - at transpeople and LGBT+ people (again, typically at the hands of cismen). If safeguarding of at risk populations is the most important thing then nobody should be sharing spaces with cismen, who are the perpetrators of most sexual violence. But, again, people are focussing specifically on transwomen only - which just hints at transmisogyny and nothing else.
And the reason I mention transmen is the account given of a woman saying a transman shouldn't use the women's bathroom in an area where, by law, people were forced to use the toilet of their assigned sex at birth - something many GC people argue for.
I think you're wrong about the history. In Eastern bloc countries, for example, it was a source of annoyance on the part of the women in the security forces that they had to use toilets designed exclusively for men.
Single sex spaces are not, in the main, something imposed by men upon women, but something that women want.
Austerity Reeves explaining this morning that shes dropped Labours commitment to spend £28bn/year on tackling climate change from day one of the next Labour govt because of her 'fiscal rules'
Only radical policy left has been ditched
The timing of the announcement, on the same week smoke from vast wildfires cloud large parts of North America, is quite something
The first good news I've heard about a potential Starmer Government.
God no surely Sunak isn’t that stupid . Knighting a wife beater ! I would be shocked if that Times story is correct . It would be insane to knight Stanley Johnson.
Even if he weren't one (and it is an allegation as he has never been convicted), what on earth is the reason for knighting him?
The excuse is he is a former MEP
The reason he was nominated is that he’s Boris’s Dad
The reason why he is getting it is because Rishi (understandably) doesn’t want to set a precedent of rejecting a previous PM’s nominations
Standards be damned, eh!
The honours system is an utter disgrace, I'm afraid.
There are so many people in all walks of life, who get no recognition for all the benefits, they bring to society, these honours now are nothing short of a farce, like most other things this Tory government have done, they have dragged this into the gutter
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
There is no issue with women, or transmen, using the male toilets.
There can be an issue with men, or transwomen, using the female ones.
That is the difference. Same with sport, there is no problem with a woman (if she wants) from competing in the male category, there is a problem with a man (if he wants) competing in the female category.
Women have single-sex spaces for safeguarding reasons. Men by and large don't. That's a huge differential.
That isn't historically why women have single-sex spaces but, even if it was, I don't understand what the issue is by letting transwomen use women's toilets. If the argument is cismen will dress up as women they can do that regardless of which bathrooms transwomen use, and if the argument is transwomen are somehow statistically more predatory than show me the data (there isn't data to suggest this).
Also if cismen are these predatory monsters why is it safe to allow transwomen and transmen to share spaces with them? With acts of sexual assault against transpeople being quite high and violence against all LGBT+ increasing (typically at the hands of cismen) surely there is a safeguarding issue there? There is also the use of corrective sexual assault - at transpeople and LGBT+ people (again, typically at the hands of cismen). If safeguarding of at risk populations is the most important thing then nobody should be sharing spaces with cismen, who are the perpetrators of most sexual violence. But, again, people are focussing specifically on transwomen only - which just hints at transmisogyny and nothing else.
And the reason I mention transmen is the account given of a woman saying a transman shouldn't use the women's bathroom in an area where, by law, people were forced to use the toilet of their assigned sex at birth - something many GC people argue for.
Nobody as far as I am aware is insisting that people only use the toilet of their assigned sex at birth. I have never, ever, heard a GC person saying that women should be excluded from men's toilets, or that post-op transmen should be.
Indeed, the idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's toilets is an extreme one. The idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's competitive sport is a rational one, again for safeguarding reasons, because even being post-op does not remove the affects of having gone through male puberty.
The idea women's safeguarding should not be violated is not extreme and is a reasonable one. Women-only single-sex spaces that exist for safeguarding should exist for actual women. Which on a sexual basis, pre-op trans women are not as a matter of fact and a matter of law. Not talking gender here, talking sex.
Safeguarding for transwomen absolutely can and should exist too. That safeguarding can be done separately to safeguarding for women though.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
I can imagine, for example, that many women would be uncomfortable with an intimate examination by a physical man who was in the process of transitioning to becoming a woman
That's fine - they can go to the very back of the queue.
Appoint today with Jenna or next month with Dr Jones - your choice...
When I lived in East London, there was a local, “women only in the building” medical clinic, to provide increased take up of services in the local community.
Presumably that was aimed primarily at Muslim women (or maybe their husbands).
The problem with all these male/female/trans debates is that you can't legislate for xxx-only spaces without legislating for genital inspection on entry. This would require at the very least a vocational course in genital inspection and tens of thousands of suitably qualified graduates throughout the land willing to devote their working lives to such a vital activity. Would the genital inspectors outside the ladies' loo necessarily be women, and how could anyone be sure? Who would inspect the inspectors?
Single sex spaces are already legislated for in the law.
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
Plus you are evidently not of the trans women are women persuasion.
Thought exercise for you: what if they are (in law)?
Pre-op trans women are not women in law as far as I am aware.
They have a female gender, yes, but not the female sex and sex does exist in law.
Single-sex spaces are not single-gender spaces. If the exclusion exists based on sex, not gender, then gender ought to be irrelevant should it not?
What is the law? As mentioned I could only find this:
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
There is no issue with women, or transmen, using the male toilets.
There can be an issue with men, or transwomen, using the female ones.
That is the difference. Same with sport, there is no problem with a woman (if she wants) from competing in the male category, there is a problem with a man (if he wants) competing in the female category.
Women have single-sex spaces for safeguarding reasons. Men by and large don't. That's a huge differential.
Women have single sex spaces not just for reasons of safety and safeguarding. It is really important for people who opine on this to understand that. Single and separate sex services and premises can be lawfully provided (if a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim) for reasons of:-
- practicality - effectiveness - reasonable objection to someone's presence or if there is to be physical contact - dignity / privacy etc., - in a hospital - religious reasons And all of this is subject to Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR.
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
It is a simple and undeniable fact that there is zero mechanism within the theory of self-id to prevent it being used by men to access women's spaces legally with a view to comitting sexual assault. This is why we see complaining about 'obsessions' etc., rather than counterarguments, because there aren't any.
If I understand your question correctly, a presurgery ftm transsexual wouldn’t have to use the women's loos, they would also have dispensation to use the disabled wc.
We have always had self-id for gender segregated bathrooms. We have never had a scenario where someone is expected to prove their sex (or genitals) on entry to a bathroom. Self-ID is the status quo.
People who are against self-ID have no means of enforcing their preferred policy. Should everyone be expected to show a document with their birth sex upon entering a public bathroom, or have a document with a genital marker on, if questioned at the door of a bathroom? If people disbelieved those documents, how would you check? Considering that presurgery (and not everyone needs surgery to deal with dysphoria / to transition) transpeople can already get their documents changed to their preferred gender - would you make surgery a requirement before document changes? Which (in my mind) would be the real pathway into forcing people in to surgeries they do not want (a thing GCs complain about people who affirm the medical consensus on healthcare for transpeople).
I demand the right to examine my GP’s genitals before an appointment
The transphobes are an odd lot.
They want trans people to be invisible to society, while simultaneously demanding they be informed about anyone who is trans.
And it does lead to odd outcomes like this:
So a question for the single-sex space advocates, what do you do in a situation like this?
Ignore. The photo is not the actual person, it's for illustrative purposes only. I am guessing the actual "beard" was 3 stray hairs.
Nonetheless, the issue is there. There are an increasing number of Trans-men who often pass quite well. Should they use the female toilets and changing rooms according to their chromosomes?
It seems that "butch" Cis-women are also being increasingly challenged.
No, they should use a facility appropriate to their genitals.
Why?
Because otherwise, women's facilities may be freely accessed by men who get off on dressing in women's clothes, and committing indecent exposure or worse. My proposed solution (downthread) is simple and fair. I don't think transwomen (post surgery) should be blocked from women's facilities, but pre-surgery (if living as a woman) they should use a disabled wc.
But we have seen that GC women will argue that a transman (afab) also shouldn't use the women's loo, genitals regardless. And no one has (yet) discussed the fact that if transmen are expected to use the women's loo that would also potentially make it easier for cismen to enter the women's on the basis of pretending to be transmen - something they could do without having to dress like a woman. The obsession with transwomen and their relationship to cismale violence suggests not a sincere concern about cismale violence (because transwomen are not cismen, and it would be easier for a cisman to pretend to be a transman than a transwoman) and instead suggests a disgust at the idea of transpeople and the weaponisation of transmisogynist specifically.
It is a simple and undeniable fact that there is zero mechanism within the theory of self-id to prevent it being used by men to access women's spaces legally with a view to comitting sexual assault. This is why we see complaining about 'obsessions' etc., rather than counterarguments, because there aren't any.
If I understand your question correctly, a presurgery ftm transsexual wouldn’t have to use the women's loos, they would also have dispensation to use the disabled wc.
Is it illegal to use the loos of the other sex? I mean, it's certainly impolite, but it's not illegal, is it?
Comments
Former U.S. Air Force Intelligence Officer Sentenced To 36 Months’ Imprisonment For Willfully Retaining Top Secret National Defense Information
https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/former-us-air-force-intelligence-officer-sentenced-36-months-imprisonment-willfully
Pled guilty, and no obstruction or conspiracy charges.
Anything by else is unconscionable and unethical
Young posters today have no idea how easy they have it these days.
Not to mention that Democrats have been campaigning for felons to have the vote.
Such options are not unknown - with dentist and GP I/family members have been offered an appointment today with AN Other or an appointment next week with regular GP/dentist. If you're flexible in who you see, you can get seen sooner. If you're not, then you have to wait for a gap in the schedule of the person you want to see.
I wouldn't advocate punishment here (which is perhaps what you're picking up, the 'very back of the queue' bit - i.e. if someone wants a same sex GP then they should get the next available appointment with a same sex GP. But that may be later than the next available appointment with an opposite sex GP and that's ok. Otherwise you're advocating bumping someone else, who wasn't fussy, down the waiting list.
Why do you insist on removing women’s’ rights
I understand why Number 10 is madly briefing this out, but can we interrogate the idea that Rishi Sunak is a "tech bro"? Doesn't this imply some level of technical ability, rather than simply a flat in Santa Monica and a weakness for expensive electronic tat?
As always with this topic it’s a question of finding a balance between the rights of trans people to live their best life and the rights of women (and men).
1. First, it confuses the NHS's obligations towards its staff - not to discriminate against them etc - with its obligations towards patients. The NHS - as an employer - has an obligation not to discriminate against staff, including those who fall within the "gender reassignment" definition. As a "service provider" it also has a separate obligation not to discriminate against patients who fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" within the Equality Act. But the two are separate obligations and should not be muddled as this guidance does.
3. It is lawful for the NHS to provide single sex or separate sex services and the list of exemptions when it may lawfully do so is quite long: it is not simply for reasons of safety. So it can exclude someone from such services on the grounds of their sex, even if they fall within the definition of "gender reassignment" or have a GRC. The comparison with being black or one of the other "protected characteristics" is silly because there are no equivalent exemptions as there are for sex. When it comes to medical treatment, sex matters.
5. An examination of a patient is an assault if the patient has not consented. Depending on the type of examination it may amount to a sexual assault. Consent obtained by deceit is not true consent and the NHS should not be seeking to trick patients into granting consent - both because it is wrong for the patient and because it puts the trans doctor or healthcare worker at risk of prosecution. It is unfair to both.
6. Patients are not obliged to comply with the Equality Act. They are not a service provider and having an intimate examination is not a service they are obliged to provide to anyone regardless of their personal wishes. A person who says that they want to have intimate care by a person of the same sex is not guilty of discrimination. This is a legal nonsense. A woman may have any number of reasons why she does not want to be intimately examined by someone of the opposite sex (see the list of exemptions in the EA) and if she does not consent to this the NHS cannot insist that she must. Nor can it seek to deceive her as to the sex of the healthcare worker. Nor is it appropriate to demand that a woman reveal details of her sexual assault before being treated for something unrelated to it. This is a gross invasion of privacy and potentially traumatic. Any examination done in defiance of her wishes is prima facie an assault. The same applies to men of course.
TO BE CONTINUED
And note Trump spent his entire first Presidential campaign calling for the indictment of his opponent.
This is a legally illiterate document. Let us count the ways.
https://twitter.com/legalfeminist/status/1666199916153036816
TIA
However on the downside that also means neither have much experience of politics at lower levels, neither Sunak or Starmer even stood for their parties for local council before getting their safe seats in 2015
AI appears to have potentially significant benefits in many areas. It is zero surprise that Google et al want to restrict public use of it, so that they can preserve their commercial edge. And zero surprise also that Rishi Sunak wants to do everything in his power to help them.
5. The guidance appears to prioritise the wishes of its staff over the wishes of its patients. This is not what the law requires and this guidance appears to be in breach of it. Nor is there any need to reveal the fact of a healthcare worker having a GRC. All that is required is that when a patient expresses a wish to be treated by someone of the same sex for that to be done. It is not necessary to breach the privacy of someone with a GRC do this. It is perfectly true that a patient has no right to be told whether a medical worker is trans or not. But that does not entitle the NHS to trick the patient into giving consent.
6. Denying someone health treatment or delaying it because they have not agreed to treatment by someone of the opposite sex would amount to indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and is, needless to say, unlawful.
7. The document says in various places that the comfort and safety of the trans worker should be prioritised over the wishes of the patient. This is wrong. The latter risks assault - a criminal offence. The former does not. A health worker should put the patient's interests first. Similarly, the document says that only a clinical need is a justification for asking for a health worker of the same sex. Again, this is legally wrong.
8. Finally, it is worth saying that the EA needs to be interpreted in light of Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR. This document completely ignores this.
I do wonder what legal advice from equality lawyers who actually understand the law in this area those who wrote and approved this guidance actually got.
However, I am reminded of Eleanor Roosevelt's remark that "great minds discuss ideas, medium minds discuss events and small minds discuss people"....which is why I leave the ad homs to bask in their own deluded sense of superiority.....happy in their "Likes".
Great minds, eh?
But what we need to address is that both trans people and women have rights and we need to learn to accommodate each other. The answer will be a balance between the two not an absolutist position one way or the other
If a man wants to be called a woman, that should be her right, but it should not violate safeguarding. If a woman wants to be treated by a woman, as is her right, then she should be able to be treated by an actual woman.
Trans people should be accorded all the respect they are due and if it doesn't violate safeguarding then using people's preferred name or pronoun is just good manners.
But when it comes to safeguarding, then safety should come first. And if a woman is requesting to be treated by a woman for safeguarding reasons, then she should be treated by an actual woman, or as others might say a "cis" woman.
The reason he was nominated is that he’s Boris’s Dad
The reason why he is getting it is because Rishi (understandably) doesn’t want to set a precedent of rejecting a previous PM’s nominations
https://lgbt.foundation/news/lgbt-foundation-to-sever-all-ties-with-the-ehrc/455
My Trans Statement:
I have a huge amount of sympathy for trans people who don't want gatekeepers to their gender and for whom a trans woman is a woman and a trans man is a man. I have a huge amount of sympathy for non-trans people, most often biological birth women who want to protect elements of their activities from potential abuse (eg sportsnprisons).
As far as I can see at this point there is a huge difficulty in reconciling these positions, in particular at the extremes, and I'm glad I'm not the one doing it.
That's it.
“You have the right to demand this. The likely consequence will be you will die. Do you want to exercise your rights?”
Writer of Empireland, which examined Britain’s imperial past, says culture war-fuelled online trolling and heckling ‘gets to you’
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/jun/09/abuse-has-led-sathnam-sanghera-to-more-or-less-stop-doing-book-events-in-uk
Some people don’t want Britain to borrow to invest in the green economy. They want us to back down.
But Keir, Rachel and I will never let that happen. Britain needs this £28bn a year plan and that is what we are committed to.
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667079092712226817?s=20
Labour has rowed back on its pledge to invest £28bn a year in green industries if it wins power, saying it needs to be "responsible" with the public finances.
In 2021 Labour promised to invest £28bn a year until 2030 in green projects.
Instead shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves said she would now ramp up investment over time from a 2024 election win, reaching £28bn a year by 2027.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65853872
There is no justification for any province of the Anglican Communion to support the criminalisation of LGBTQ people: not in our resolutions, our teachings, or the Gospel we share.
After writing to the Primate of Uganda, I make the following statement:
https://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/news/news-and-statements/statement-archbishop-justin-welby-church-ugandas-support-anti'
https://twitter.com/JustinWelby/status/1667061465210126337?s=20
IANAL and I have not read the document - commenting only on the interaction with GRC for clinicians in possessions of one. I do have some experience neogiating the legalities of GRCs on the patient side for data analysis (essentially, until very recently under legal exceptions granted for the Cass review, data pre- and post- legal transition cannot be legally linked). The document goes wider than those with a GRC, I accept (and I don't comment on that).
There can be an issue with men, or transwomen, using the female ones.
That is the difference. Same with sport, there is no problem with a woman (if she wants) from competing in the male category, there is a problem with a man (if he wants) competing in the female category.
Women have single-sex spaces for safeguarding reasons. Men by and large don't. That's a huge differential.
https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1666880273068486658?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ&fbclid=IwAR29x89LIqejaNY47mqVnLWVJ88UdmpsNqoUSlu6rTnYFTrZryFIhuYbtW4
https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1666923370720677888?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ&fbclid=IwAR0J4KAo8W8fZg642e_12RnMa_NR7p2NTVW210L0gCJr_AaLsQjSOIVmjWk
https://twitter.com/graceelavery/status/1666933401969131520?s=46&t=16Vx1hkPdKeRguANzrOtZQ&fbclid=IwAR1UENHEVJ6egy2_wOU0ih-1bNJ3FyEu2769Vzwbfl2cNkTO5QSP98K6xyk
Vote for us we will U Turn on everything - Liars Labour 2020 -2024
1. How invested are they in 'being' a woman as opposed to potentially indulging a kink - there's no distinction
2. Willies
Allowing access post surgery (following a long medical process) removes both these issues, and I think it's then right and fair. Of course, sport is a totally different issue.
Today is indeed a dark day for the United States of America.
It is unconscionable for a President to indict the leading candidate opposing him. Joe Biden kept classified documents for decades.
I, and every American who believes in the rule of law, stand with President Trump against this grave injustice. House Republicans will hold this brazen weaponization of power accountable.'
https://twitter.com/SpeakerMcCarthy/status/1666979107681325064?s=20
'@RonDeSantis
The weaponization of federal law enforcement represents a mortal threat to a free society.
We have for years witnessed an uneven application of the law depending upon political affiliation.
Why so zealous in pursuing Trump yet so passive about Hillary or Hunter?
The DeSantis administration will bring accountability to the DOJ, excise political bias and end weaponization once and for all.'
https://twitter.com/RonDeSantis/status/1666986884604522499?s=20
There is no requirement for a genital inspector, just for people to follow the law.
Do you think all legally authorised single-sex spaces should be abolished, due to the lack of genital inspectors?
Boris Johnson's father has also been taken off the list after No 10 said it wasn't appropriate
[@thetimes]
https://twitter.com/PolitlcsUK/status/1667073997131923459?s=20
Only radical policy left has been ditched
The timing of the announcement, on the same week smoke from vast wildfires cloud large parts of North America, is quite something
It is worth noting that the Good Law Project recently brought a case against the NHS stating that it was discriminating against trans patients because of the delays in giving them treatment. It lost that case, in part because the evidence was that the NHS had increased the money available for this area but there were simply not the health workers willing to work in this area. But a lack of resources does not (necessarily) amount to discrimination.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/06/09/rishi-sunak-news-latest-us-ai-boris-johnson-covid-inquiry/
The honours system is an utter disgrace, I'm afraid.
In fact, that view seems to be quite widespread, among people in positions of authority.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-07-04/hcws172
Thought exercise for you: what if they are (in law)?
Also if cismen are these predatory monsters why is it safe to allow transwomen and transmen to share spaces with them? With acts of sexual assault against transpeople being quite high and violence against all LGBT+ increasing (typically at the hands of cismen) surely there is a safeguarding issue there? There is also the use of corrective sexual assault - at transpeople and LGBT+ people (again, typically at the hands of cismen). If safeguarding of at risk populations is the most important thing then nobody should be sharing spaces with cismen, who are the perpetrators of most sexual violence. But, again, people are focussing specifically on transwomen only - which just hints at transmisogyny and nothing else.
And the reason I mention transmen is the account given of a woman saying a transman shouldn't use the women's bathroom in an area where, by law, people were forced to use the toilet of their assigned sex at birth - something many GC people argue for.
Note that both also seem aware - in sharp contrast to their colleagues - that no one other than the grand jury has yet seen the basis for the charges.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4041828-what-2024-gop-candidates-are-saying-about-trumps-indictment/
Chris Christie:
“We don’t get our news from Trump’s Truth Social account. Let’s see what the facts are when any possible indictment is released,” Christie said in a Twitter post. “As I have said before, no one is above the law, no matter how much they wish they were. We will have more to say when the facts are revealed.”
and Asa Hutchinson:
...“With the news that Donald Trump has been indicted for the second time, our country finds itself in a position that weakens our democracy,” Hutchinson said in a statement, adding that “Donald Trump’s actions—from his willful disregard for the Constitution to his disrespect for the rule of law—should not define our nation or the Republican Party.”
“This is a sad day for our country. While Donald Trump is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the ongoing criminal proceedings will be a major distraction,” he continued “This reaffirms the need for Donald Trump to respect the office and end his campaign.”
Judging by the condition of some toilets, some men seem to find it almost impossible to use a urinal, even in possession of a penis.
If they have a GRC then they have a female gender, yes, but not the female sex and sex does exist in law.
Single-sex spaces are not single-gender spaces. If the exclusion exists based on sex, not gender, then gender ought to be irrelevant should it not?
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2022-07-04/hcws172
This is more "the will of the Prince has the force of law."
“We need to be the party of the Green New Deal... if it’s BAD for the environment then it’s BAD for the economy”
Yesterday, Labour cancelled its New Green Deal policy.
If I understand your question correctly, a presurgery ftm transsexual wouldn’t have to use the women's loos, they would also have dispensation to use the disabled wc.
Single sex spaces are not, in the main, something imposed by men upon women, but something that women want.
Indeed, the idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's toilets is an extreme one. The idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's competitive sport is a rational one, again for safeguarding reasons, because even being post-op does not remove the affects of having gone through male puberty.
The idea women's safeguarding should not be violated is not extreme and is a reasonable one. Women-only single-sex spaces that exist for safeguarding should exist for actual women. Which on a sexual basis, pre-op trans women are not as a matter of fact and a matter of law. Not talking gender here, talking sex.
Safeguarding for transwomen absolutely can and should exist too. That safeguarding can be done separately to safeguarding for women though.
- practicality
- effectiveness
- reasonable objection to someone's presence or if there is to be physical contact - dignity / privacy etc.,
- in a hospital
- religious reasons
And all of this is subject to Articles 3 & 8 of the ECHR.
This is not just about safety.
People who are against self-ID have no means of enforcing their preferred policy. Should everyone be expected to show a document with their birth sex upon entering a public bathroom, or have a document with a genital marker on, if questioned at the door of a bathroom? If people disbelieved those documents, how would you check? Considering that presurgery (and not everyone needs surgery to deal with dysphoria / to transition) transpeople can already get their documents changed to their preferred gender - would you make surgery a requirement before document changes? Which (in my mind) would be the real pathway into forcing people in to surgeries they do not want (a thing GCs complain about people who affirm the medical consensus on healthcare for transpeople).