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.
Whatever floats your boat
Wanting your Grandkids to inherit an unlovable planet is a bit of a strange one though
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.
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).
What's a gender-segregated bathroom?
I thought we were talking about single-sex spaces? Why are you bringing gender into the conversation?
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?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
As I pointed out earlier, that Times article is so hedged around that it looks like The Times does not know who to believe. The Times also printed more-or-less the opposite story, as in the header. But in any case, precisely no-one will believe Dorries and Sharma have been removed for more vetting. If it happens it will be to avoid the resultant by-elections.
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.
As I've recounted before, it ain't Trans predators that have chatted my wife up in communal bogs in bars, it's pissed up young rugby players who have chanced their arm!
“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.
Not quite - it took one look at the true state of the Country's finances and cut things back because after the last set of clowns we don't have any spare money...
Remember that this country is now very similar to Woking where the Tory leadership has over spent, delivered the sum root of sod all and left a very large bill to pay.
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).
What's a gender-segregated bathroom?
I thought we were talking about single-sex spaces? Why are you bringing gender into the conversation?
Because bathrooms have always been accessible to people based on their gender, not sex. Transpeople have always been able to use the public bathrooms that align with their gender. And I am interested you refuse to discuss any of the questions I proposed.
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.
If the review process doesn’t work then reform it.
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?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
Why would it involve the police. Members of staff can remove customers making a nuisance of themselves.
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.
And when they do that should be condemned as well
They should, yes.
I am cognisant that if one side plays by the rules and the other doesn't, then the side that doesn't play by the rules wins (or is more likely to). For example, if one party gerrymanders and the other doesn't, the gerrymanderers do well.
What is the solution here? I would hope the rules could be tightened and condemnation would rain down on the perpetrators, but that hasn't happened yet in the US.
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).
Yes. Legal recognition as ones' newly designated gender would happen post-surgery, and surgery itself would follow a serious medical diagnosis and process.
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:
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
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."
Indeed. The whole trans shit must have a single main source. That's obvious. That's how propaganda and the culture work at this type of level, as a quick reading of Edward Bernays will illuminate.
It's not even about "US elites" having "gone mad". They may be as mad as hatters, but that's not the causation.
Although she sometimes talks crap, Germaine Greer said something very interesting about the reform of abortion law around the time of the late 1960s and early 1970s. She said big medical capital and in particular embryo research interests were behind it. But, said the interviewer, you and your comrades campaigned hard - didn't your movement have any influence? She said listen, mate, we could have campaigned for 100 years and we wouldn't have got anywhere whatsoever if the embryo research interests hadn't pushed for what they wanted.
Some may be very sceptical when they read that, but look who it was who said it.
(I'm assuming your reference to the Prince and "force" was to Niccolo Machiavelli rather than an allusion to royalty and how they can "force it".)
Some will deny that the above notion deserves any consideration at all until someone can provide them with chapter and verse "evidence". Poor sods who can't think well.
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?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
The same as any law is enforced, primarily by people self-respecting the law.
We don't live in an authoritarian Police state where every law needs to be enforced by the Police all the time.
Do you accept the fact that sex and gender are two different things under the law?
Do you accept that single-sex spaces are acceptable under the 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
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 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?
I don't know, but it is the convention. Conventions, when they come under strong challenge, sometimes have to change, and sometimes they have to become 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.
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).
What's a gender-segregated bathroom?
I thought we were talking about single-sex spaces? Why are you bringing gender into the conversation?
Because bathrooms have always been accessible to people based on their gender, not sex. Transpeople have always been able to use the public bathrooms that align with their gender. And I am interested you refuse to discuss any of the questions I proposed.
[Citation needed]
The fact a man, or a trans woman, can walk into a women's bathroom without a genital inspector stood by a door does not mean that it is not designed as a single-sex space.
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:
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
It's not an issue that involves the criminal law, certainly. So, the notion, advanced by the poster above, that people would have to go to the police to make an arrest, is a silly straw man.
What the law does is protect from claims of discrimination, on grounds of sex or gender reassignment, service providers who establish single sex spaces, in certain circumstances.
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."
Indeed. The whole trans shit must have a single main source. That's obvious. That's how propaganda and the culture work at this type of level, as a quick reading of Edward Bernays will illuminate.
It's not even about "US elites" having "gone mad". They may be as mad as hatters, but that's not the causation.
Although she sometimes talks crap, Germaine Greer said something very interesting about the abortion rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. She said big medical capital and in particular embryo research interests were behind it. But, said the interviewer, you and your comrades campaigned hard - didn't your movement have any influence? She said listen, mate, we could have campaigned for 100 years and we wouldn't have got anywhere whatsoever if the embryo research interests hadn't pushed for what they wanted.
Some may be very sceptical when they read that, but look who it was who said it.
(I'm assuming your reference to the Prince and "force" was to Niccolo Machiavelli rather than an allusion to royalty and how they can "force it".)
That's bollocks. I say this as someone who knows/knew multiple people who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK.
Pre-op trans women are not women in law as far as I am aware.
Although I understand many on PB believe differently, IIUC trans women with a GRC are women in law (there is ongoing disagreement as to other subcategories). Somebody with a GRC can change their birth certificate.
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.
And when they do that should be condemned as well
They should, yes.
I am cognisant that if one side plays by the rules and the other doesn't, then the side that doesn't play by the rules wins (or is more likely to). For example, if one party gerrymanders and the other doesn't, the gerrymanderers do well.
What is the solution here? I would hope the rules could be tightened and condemnation would rain down on the perpetrators, but that hasn't happened yet in the US.
“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.
Not quite - it took one look at the true state of the Country's finances and cut things back because after the last set of clowns we don't have any spare money...
Remember that this country is now very similar to Woking where the Tory leadership has over spent, delivered the sum root of sod all and left a very large bill to pay.
Annoying to see a lot of empty seats at The Oval when it's officially sold out.
Why?
There always is at the Cricket as plenty of people will be at the bars etc even while play is ongoing. Cricket isn't like football.
The amount of empty seats is not the same as the amount of people not there for those seats. At any time there will be a number of empty seats but which seats are empty will vary.
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.
And when they do that should be condemned as well
They should, yes.
I am cognisant that if one side plays by the rules and the other doesn't, then the side that doesn't play by the rules wins (or is more likely to). For example, if one party gerrymanders and the other doesn't, the gerrymanderers do well.
What is the solution here? I would hope the rules could be tightened and condemnation would rain down on the perpetrators, but that hasn't happened yet in the US.
Both sides gerrymander in the US
They do, yes. That doesn't really answer my question.
Annoying to see a lot of empty seats at The Oval when it's officially sold out.
Why?
There always is at the Cricket as plenty of people will be at the bars etc even while play is ongoing. Cricket isn't like football.
The amount of empty seats is not the same as the amount of people not there for those seats. At any time there will be a number of empty seats but which seats are empty will vary.
Not in my experience. Whenever I've been to a sell-out, all of the seats have actually been occupied, or at least 99% of them.
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.
And when they do that should be condemned as well
They should, yes.
I am cognisant that if one side plays by the rules and the other doesn't, then the side that doesn't play by the rules wins (or is more likely to). For example, if one party gerrymanders and the other doesn't, the gerrymanderers do well.
What is the solution here? I would hope the rules could be tightened and condemnation would rain down on the perpetrators, but that hasn't happened yet in the US.
Both sides gerrymander in the US
They do, yes. That doesn't really answer my question.
It needs cultural change which is difficult. Having the boundary commission being non partisan would be the most important but not sure how you get there from where you are today
Annoying to see a lot of empty seats at The Oval when it's officially sold out.
Why?
There always is at the Cricket as plenty of people will be at the bars etc even while play is ongoing. Cricket isn't like football.
The amount of empty seats is not the same as the amount of people not there for those seats. At any time there will be a number of empty seats but which seats are empty will vary.
Not in my experience. Whenever I've been to a sell-out, all of the seats have actually been occupied, or at least 99% of them.
Maybe it varies by grounds but at Old Trafford and Trent Bridge when I've been to sell outs there, there are always a good number of seats empty at any time, and people milling around the bars etc and going back and forth between the seats and the bars.
Marking the tercentenary of Adam Smith's birth. “#AdamSmith's belief in free speech was tempered by respect and empathy for others. We need to be free to think, debate and free to offend. We need to base out critical thinking on facts and science. There is immense value in robust debate; that clash of competing opinions – benefits both society and government.” [VIDEO]
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:
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
Yes, so far it's only in the US, AFAIK, that laws are being passed actually criminalising bathroom use.
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?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
The same as any law is enforced, primarily by people self-respecting the law.
We don't live in an authoritarian Police state where every law needs to be enforced by the Police all the time.
Do you accept the fact that sex and gender are two different things under the law?
Do you accept that single-sex spaces are acceptable under the law?
If a person is in a shop, and a shop keeper accuses them of stealing and goes to a nearby police officer, the officer can ask the person accused to empty their pockets / bag, ask them what they have done, and detain them for the period of time it takes check the security cameras (if they exist) as evidence. Should there be similar protocol for anyone who is accused of being in the wrong bathroom?
Sex and gender define things that often overlap. I have not read a definition of sex that includes everyone who would be included within a definition of male or female that does not also rely on things that typically come under gender - for example there are ciswomen who can give birth who have xy chromosones. Nobody would call them men, but they are chromosonally "male". This is because sex and gender are both words created to try and put human experience into clear boxes, and biology typically is messy. Sex and gender are both bimodal - they tend towards two nodes on a scale, but have many things in between - and the more we measure the things we use to define sex, the more we find people who live in that in between.
I accept that the law allows for the provision of single sex spaces where necessary and proportional and if no other option is available. I also don't know based on government and EHRC guidance what they mean by sex when they say this - again, would our ciswoman who is chromosonally male be guided to the mens' room or the womens' room?
How the Tories must be loving SKS's version of within-the-Labour-party McCarthyism which is cancelling not only Ken Loach but also anyone discussing Loach's body of work which has been the most powerful indictment of Tory rule since 1980.
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:
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
It's not an issue that involves the criminal law, certainly. So, the notion, advanced by the poster above, that people would have to go to the police to make an arrest, is a silly straw man.
What the law does is protect from claims of discrimination, on grounds of sex or gender reassignment, service providers who establish single sex spaces, in certain circumstances.
Yep. But it doesn't say anything about enforcement which I suppose is the point being made.
I think Bart said "just enforce the law" wrt keeping the right people in the right loos but the EHRC says nothing about this element just, as you say, that having a single sex space may not be illegal.
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?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
The same as any law is enforced, primarily by people self-respecting the law.
We don't live in an authoritarian Police state where every law needs to be enforced by the Police all the time.
Do you accept the fact that sex and gender are two different things under the law?
Do you accept that single-sex spaces are acceptable under the law?
If a person is in a shop, and a shop keeper accuses them of stealing and goes to a nearby police officer, the officer can ask the person accused to empty their pockets / bag, ask them what they have done, and detain them for the period of time it takes check the security cameras (if they exist) as evidence. Should there be similar protocol for anyone who is accused of being in the wrong bathroom?
Sex and gender define things that often overlap. I have not read a definition of sex that includes everyone who would be included within a definition of male or female that does not also rely on things that typically come under gender - for example there are ciswomen who can give birth who have xy chromosones. Nobody would call them men, but they are chromosonally "male". This is because sex and gender are both words created to try and put human experience into clear boxes, and biology typically is messy. Sex and gender are both bimodal - they tend towards two nodes on a scale, but have many things in between - and the more we measure the things we use to define sex, the more we find people who live in that in between.
I accept that the law allows for the provision of single sex spaces where necessary and proportional and if no other option is available. I also don't know based on government and EHRC guidance what they mean by sex when they say this - again, would our ciswoman who is chromosonally male be guided to the mens' room or the womens' room?
Stealing is against the law.
Creating single sex spaces is protected under the law, but its not a matter of the Police enforcing it.
If someone sexually male goes into a single-sex space which results in objections then the staff who work there should and do have the legal right to ask them to leave the premises as a result, if they choose to do that. That doesn't require a Police officer.
You raised the objection of safeguarding for the trans individual who doesn't want to go into the male toilets, there is a simple and sensible solution for that normally which is to use the disabled WC instead. Not impose themselves on the women's toilets instead.
Its just a case of everyone being sensible and reasonable.
There has long been a lack of MPs with a background of STEM subjects. With the forthcoming impact of AI, there is a immediate need for MPs with an understanding of computing, digitalisation and big data in general, and AI in particular.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
IANAL but sex and gender are two different things under the law, as far as I am aware.
This has been bought up more than once on PB IIRC. The last time was @Cookie some days ago, although I think he didn't reach a conclusion.
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
Some years ago, Cyclefree posted an article about somebody who wanted X on their passport. Links to a BBC article and thence to the case revealed that one of the judges said the two were the same.
Last year some judge ruled that the two were the same. I assume other PBers can yield links as it was discussed here at the time.
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).
What's a gender-segregated bathroom?
I thought we were talking about single-sex spaces? Why are you bringing gender into the conversation?
Because bathrooms have always been accessible to people based on their gender, not sex. Transpeople have always been able to use the public bathrooms that align with their gender. And I am interested you refuse to discuss any of the questions I proposed.
[Citation needed]
The fact a man, or a trans woman, can walk into a women's bathroom without a genital inspector stood by a door does not mean that it is not designed as a single-sex space.
Again, you are only addressing the part of the conversation you wish to address and not the impact of your proposed policy solution.
If a transwoman, who was viewed by most people as a woman, walked into the male toilet most men would be like "sorry, but you're in the wrong loo" and visa versa for a transman. I would therefore argue that they are designed to be gender-segregated and not sex-segregated because people do not know the sex of anyone using the public bathroom and only the gender of them. What is policed (whether socially or by law) is the gender presentation of people - which is why butch ciswomen are also being told to not use the womens' bathrooms because women believe them to be men.
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:
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
It's not an issue that involves the criminal law, certainly. So, the notion, advanced by the poster above, that people would have to go to the police to make an arrest, is a silly straw man.
What the law does is protect from claims of discrimination, on grounds of sex or gender reassignment, service providers who establish single sex spaces, in certain circumstances.
Yep. But it doesn't say anything about enforcement which I suppose is the point being made.
I think Bart said "just enforce the law" wrt keeping the right people in the right loos but the EHRC says nothing about this element just, as you say, that having a single sex space may not be illegal.
I never said just enforce the law wrt loos. Sorry if you got the impression that I did, but I just did a Ctrl+F for "enforce the law" and yours is the only post to contain that phrase.
There has long been a lack of MPs with a background of STEM subjects. With the forthcoming impact of AI, there is a immediate need for MPs with an understanding of computing, digitalisation and big data in general, and AI in particular.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
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).
What's a gender-segregated bathroom?
I thought we were talking about single-sex spaces? Why are you bringing gender into the conversation?
Because bathrooms have always been accessible to people based on their gender, not sex. Transpeople have always been able to use the public bathrooms that align with their gender. And I am interested you refuse to discuss any of the questions I proposed.
[Citation needed]
The fact a man, or a trans woman, can walk into a women's bathroom without a genital inspector stood by a door does not mean that it is not designed as a single-sex space.
Again, you are only addressing the part of the conversation you wish to address and not the impact of your proposed policy solution.
If a transwoman, who was viewed by most people as a woman, walked into the male toilet most men would be like "sorry, but you're in the wrong loo" and visa versa for a transman. I would therefore argue that they are designed to be gender-segregated and not sex-segregated because people do not know the sex of anyone using the public bathroom and only the gender of them. What is policed (whether socially or by law) is the gender presentation of people - which is why butch ciswomen are also being told to not use the womens' bathrooms because women believe them to be men.
We're talking pre-op here, so no a transwoman would not necessarily visibly be veiwed by most people as a woman.
Women can walk into male toilets, its not a problem. Many women do quite frequently, to avoid the queue for the women's too.
If someone who is physically male doesn't want to use the male toilets then there is typically the disabled toilets available as a sex-neutral alternative too.
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:
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
It's not an issue that involves the criminal law, certainly. So, the notion, advanced by the poster above, that people would have to go to the police to make an arrest, is a silly straw man.
What the law does is protect from claims of discrimination, on grounds of sex or gender reassignment, service providers who establish single sex spaces, in certain circumstances.
Yep. But it doesn't say anything about enforcement which I suppose is the point being made.
I think Bart said "just enforce the law" wrt keeping the right people in the right loos but the EHRC says nothing about this element just, as you say, that having a single sex space may not be illegal.
I never said just enforce the law wrt loos. Sorry if you got the impression that I did, but I just did a Ctrl+F for "enforce the law" and yours is the only post to contain that phrase.
You said this:
"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."
Which strongly suggests that you think that for people to "follow the law" they (in law) are not allowed to go into the wrong loo.
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?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
The same as any law is enforced, primarily by people self-respecting the law.
We don't live in an authoritarian Police state where every law needs to be enforced by the Police all the time.
Do you accept the fact that sex and gender are two different things under the law?
Do you accept that single-sex spaces are acceptable under the law?
If a person is in a shop, and a shop keeper accuses them of stealing and goes to a nearby police officer, the officer can ask the person accused to empty their pockets / bag, ask them what they have done, and detain them for the period of time it takes check the security cameras (if they exist) as evidence. Should there be similar protocol for anyone who is accused of being in the wrong bathroom?
Sex and gender define things that often overlap. I have not read a definition of sex that includes everyone who would be included within a definition of male or female that does not also rely on things that typically come under gender - for example there are ciswomen who can give birth who have xy chromosomes. Nobody would call them men, but they are chromosomally "male". This is because sex and gender are both words created to try and put human experience into clear boxes, and biology typically is messy. Sex and gender are both bimodal - they tend towards two nodes on a scale, but have many things in between - and the more we measure the things we use to define sex, the more we find people who live in that in between.
I accept that the law allows for the provision of single sex spaces where necessary and proportional and if no other option is available. I also don't know based on government and EHRC guidance what they mean by sex when they say this - again, would our ciswoman who is chromosomally male be guided to the mens' room or the womens' room?
Stealing is against the law.
Creating single sex spaces is protected under the law, but its not a matter of the Police enforcing it.
If someone sexually male goes into a single-sex space which results in objections then the staff who work there should and do have the legal right to ask them to leave the premises as a result, if they choose to do that. That doesn't require a Police officer.
You raised the objection of safeguarding for the trans individual who doesn't want to go into the male toilets, there is a simple and sensible solution for that normally which is to use the disabled WC instead. Not impose themselves on the women's toilets instead.
Its just a case of everyone being sensible and reasonable.
But the point of laws is the belief that people do not always act sensible and reasonable and therefore policing is necessary.
If someone is accused of being a male, and the staff intervene, and the person denies being male - what do the staff do? How do they escalate? Is this person now in breach of the peace? Of course a police officer would be involved if someone is asked to leave the toilet they believe they should use and refuse to. Again, in that scenario what happens? When a masculine ciswoman is told to leave, how do they argue against that without having to resort to documentation or some investigation into their "biological sex"? And what happens if they are a ciswoman who has given birth and on such an investigation into their "biological sex" learns they have xy chromosomes?
There has long been a lack of MPs with a background of STEM subjects. With the forthcoming impact of AI, there is a immediate need for MPs with an understanding of computing, digitalisation and big data in general, and AI in particular.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
No. Being able to recite a bit of latin is seen as more worthy by the great and the good.
Of the 541 MPs with higher education degrees in the 2015-2017 Parliament, only 93 (17%) held degrees in STEM subjects; for comparison, 46% of UK students in 2019 graduated in STEM subjects.
If only the Tories had been as economically responsible as Labour, they too could have avoided crashing the economy
Lol. The problem with your suggestion my old friend is (besides it being demonstrably factually incorrect) that Labour (partic. it's current incarnation) does not understand the first thing about business, and worse they do not care. They are only interested in feathering the nests of the already bloated public sector workers.
The one thing about New Labour was that it at least tried to pay lip service to that essential area of the economy that they didn't understand, and in fact didn't do too bad a job. The problem for Now Labour is that they still despise people who have taken risks to build businesses and like to punish people who generate wealth. In this area they are still not moved on from Corbyn and it is why they will fuck the economy like all other Labour governments have. This will be necessary, regrettably, for the Tories to recover from the disastrous days of Johnson and Truss and come back as the sensible party of government as a juxtaposition to the union loving prizes for all (as long as you are in public sector) Labour Party
Indeed, the idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's toilets is an extreme one.
Did you make a typo when you said that?
The entire stance of the gender critical movement is that they should be so banned. If sex is decided at conception by one's genetics, then no amount of genital origami ("Look! It's a crane") will change that. If one believes that sex=genetics and that toilets be single sex, then it follows ineluctably that post-op transwomen must be banned from women's toilets.
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:
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
It's not an issue that involves the criminal law, certainly. So, the notion, advanced by the poster above, that people would have to go to the police to make an arrest, is a silly straw man.
What the law does is protect from claims of discrimination, on grounds of sex or gender reassignment, service providers who establish single sex spaces, in certain circumstances.
Yep. But it doesn't say anything about enforcement which I suppose is the point being made.
I think Bart said "just enforce the law" wrt keeping the right people in the right loos but the EHRC says nothing about this element just, as you say, that having a single sex space may not be illegal.
I never said just enforce the law wrt loos. Sorry if you got the impression that I did, but I just did a Ctrl+F for "enforce the law" and yours is the only post to contain that phrase.
You said this:
"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."
Which strongly suggests that you think that for people to "follow the law" they (in law) are not allowed to go into the wrong loo.
No, that's your own inference.
The creation of single-sex spaces is protected under the law. There is no criminal offence of going into the wrong single-sex space though.
If someone doesn't follow a premises policies though, then the staff of the premise are generally entitled to escort the patron out of the building. No police or law required, and since the single-sex space is a protected characteristic in the law, then its not discriminatory to do so AFAIK.
Pre-op trans women are not women in law as far as I am aware.
Although I understand many on PB believe differently, IIUC trans women with a GRC are women in law (there is ongoing disagreement as to other subcategories). Somebody with a GRC can change their birth certificate.
Yes. There has never been any requirement for genital surgery (and with good reason - 90%+ of trans women don't have it as its difficult and frequently unsuccessful). The issue is whether a GRC changes a person's sex for all purposes (not just passport/birth certificate as some proponents of reform argue) - and the recent Haldane decision that it does has led to the argument that the Equality Act should be reformed to clarify that "sex" refers to a person's birth sex. As originally passed it tends to use "sex" and "gender" as synonyms. The EHRC wrote to the government suggesting that doing so would bring legal clarity - but needs careful consideration as it may impinge on trans people's rights.
This has been widely condemned by Stonewall et al, whose grasp of the law is sometimes tenuous at best.
There has been recent coverage suggesting that Sunak may bottle it as "too difficult" - which does rather suggest he's still not got the hang of this "politics" thing. It would put SKS in a fine old pickle.....(and Labour would never do so, given the views of their members, if not their voters).
Indeed, the idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's toilets is an extreme one.
Did you make a typo when you said that?
The entire stance of the gender critical movement is that they should be so banned. If sex is decided at conception by one's genetics, then no amount of genital origami ("Look! It's a crane") will change that. If one believes that sex=genetics and that toilets be single sex, then it follows ineluctably that post-op transwomen must be banned from women's toilets.
No typo.
AFAIK the mainstream sex concern is that people with a penis should not be allowed in women's-only spaces. Post-op, I do not believe that the concern is as widespread, but pre-op absolutely.
For sport it remains an issue, due to the matter of fairness, even being post-op doesn't reverse male puberty. But for safeguarding women's-only spaces, I see very few people raising objections to post-op individuals going into a woman's-only space.
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:
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
It's not an issue that involves the criminal law, certainly. So, the notion, advanced by the poster above, that people would have to go to the police to make an arrest, is a silly straw man.
What the law does is protect from claims of discrimination, on grounds of sex or gender reassignment, service providers who establish single sex spaces, in certain circumstances.
Yep. But it doesn't say anything about enforcement which I suppose is the point being made.
I think Bart said "just enforce the law" wrt keeping the right people in the right loos but the EHRC says nothing about this element just, as you say, that having a single sex space may not be illegal.
I never said just enforce the law wrt loos. Sorry if you got the impression that I did, but I just did a Ctrl+F for "enforce the law" and yours is the only post to contain that phrase.
You said this:
"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."
Which strongly suggests that you think that for people to "follow the law" they (in law) are not allowed to go into the wrong loo.
No, that's your own inference.
The creation of single-sex spaces is protected under the law. There is no criminal offence of going into the wrong single-sex space though.
If someone doesn't follow a premises policies though, then the staff of the premise are generally entitled to escort the patron out of the building. No police or law required, and since the single-sex space is a protected characteristic in the law, then its not discriminatory to do so AFAIK.
Hmm. A bit of wriggling there. You said people (ie transgender people) should "follow the law". V tenuous to say the law they should be following is the law which allows single sex spaces. Rather, it reads that they should follow the law of them not being allowed in those spaces. And there is no such law, as you appreciate.
But if you say you meant otherwise I am happy to accept your explanation.
There has long been a lack of MPs with a background of STEM subjects. With the forthcoming impact of AI, there is a immediate need for MPs with an understanding of computing, digitalisation and big data in general, and AI in particular.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
One of the biggest problems with the obsession with so-called STEM subjects by politicians is that there is much emphasis placed on the third letter and very little on the first two. What you identify, though, is very valid. Political parties ought to look at diversity not just in people's obvious characteristics but also in training and experience. Labour, for example has very very few people with experience in wealth creation, and both parities have very small numbers of people from the armed forces.
8:15am Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor: We offer 0% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
9:00am Ed Miliband, Shadow Climate Centre Minister: We offer 100% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
Massively messed up or massive falling out?
In business, people promising “billions on investment in X” are usually making an empty promise.
See the Electrify America thing - where they had standards, government backing, press releases etc. They haven’t built anywhere near enough actual EV charging spots, though.
8:15am Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor: We offer 0% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
9:00am Ed Miliband, Shadow Climate Centre Minister: We offer 100% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
Massively messed up or massive falling out?
Same form of words, like them or not.
Rachel, Keir and I are determined to deliver our Green Prosperity Plan, ramping up to £28bn a year in investment in the second half of the parliament at the latest. This plan will transform Britain to cut bills, create jobs, and lead on climate. https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667079092712226817
“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.
ToryJohnOwls
Not content with voting Tory for the last 10 years Tory Sunil is an SKS fan so is now voting Tory again
Tory love in Sunil /SKS 4EVA
FAKE NEWS, BJO and you know it! I voted Labour at the GE2015, and at the Redbridge Locals just last year. I want Labour to win the next election, you don't!
8:15am Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor: We offer 0% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
9:00am Ed Miliband, Shadow Climate Centre Minister: We offer 100% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
Massively messed up or massive falling out?
Same form of words, like them or not.
Rachel, Keir and I are determined to deliver our Green Prosperity Plan, ramping up to £28bn a year in investment in the second half of the parliament at the latest. This plan will transform Britain to cut bills, create jobs, and lead on climate. https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667079092712226817
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 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. 9:00 AM · Jun 9, 2023
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.
The irony. Trump becomes a felon - because of the laws he changed aimed at Hilary Clinton. Trump gets to vote as a felon - because of the Democrats.
Although I understand many on PB believe differently, IIUC trans women with a GRC are women in law (there is ongoing disagreement as to other subcategories). Somebody with a GRC can change their birth certificate.
Yes. There has never been any requirement for genital surgery (and with good reason - 90%+ of trans women don't have it as its difficult and frequently unsuccessful). The issue is whether a GRC changes a person's sex for all purposes (not just passport/birth certificate as some proponents of reform argue) - and the recent Haldane decision that it does has led to the argument that the Equality Act should be reformed to clarify that "sex" refers to a person's birth sex. As originally passed it tends to use "sex" and "gender" as synonyms....
Googles "Haldane decision". Ah yes, that was the judgment before Xmas on whether gender=sex. Thank you, had forgotten the name: I'd mentioned it in Comment 4428679 to @BartholomewRoberts . The link is below: I'll read it later.
8:15am Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor: We offer 0% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
9:00am Ed Miliband, Shadow Climate Centre Minister: We offer 100% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
Massively messed up or massive falling out?
Same form of words, like them or not.
Rachel, Keir and I are determined to deliver our Green Prosperity Plan, ramping up to £28bn a year in investment in the second half of the parliament at the latest. This plan will transform Britain to cut bills, create jobs, and lead on climate. https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667079092712226817
Ed Miliband @Ed_Miliband 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. 9:00 AM · Jun 9, 2023
Labour has spent this week looking like a clown troupe.
As an aside, I'm happy to report that yesterday was a record day for my solar panels, which produced over 27kwh, roaring past the previous record (Monday) of just over 23kwh. I use about 10kwh a day, so that's 17kwh going to the grid. For complicated reasons, I can't actually get any money for all that yet (and when I do, feed in tarriffs are far from generous: I'll get, what, about a pound a day in summer); but still, 40,000 domestic installations like this will be another GW of capacity on a sunny June day. I'm slightly wary of gridwatch's figures on solar, but even if we take them at face value we are currently (i.e. at 11am today) producing 22% of our electricity through solar, which is more than any other source. I find this pretty remarkable, no?
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?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
The same as any law is enforced, primarily by people self-respecting the law.
We don't live in an authoritarian Police state where every law needs to be enforced by the Police all the time.
Do you accept the fact that sex and gender are two different things under the law?
Do you accept that single-sex spaces are acceptable under the law?
If a person is in a shop, and a shop keeper accuses them of stealing and goes to a nearby police officer, the officer can ask the person accused to empty their pockets / bag, ask them what they have done, and detain them for the period of time it takes check the security cameras (if they exist) as evidence. Should there be similar protocol for anyone who is accused of being in the wrong bathroom?
Sex and gender define things that often overlap. I have not read a definition of sex that includes everyone who would be included within a definition of male or female that does not also rely on things that typically come under gender - for example there are ciswomen who can give birth who have xy chromosomes. Nobody would call them men, but they are chromosomally "male". This is because sex and gender are both words created to try and put human experience into clear boxes, and biology typically is messy. Sex and gender are both bimodal - they tend towards two nodes on a scale, but have many things in between - and the more we measure the things we use to define sex, the more we find people who live in that in between.
I accept that the law allows for the provision of single sex spaces where necessary and proportional and if no other option is available. I also don't know based on government and EHRC guidance what they mean by sex when they say this - again, would our ciswoman who is chromosomally male be guided to the mens' room or the womens' room?
Stealing is against the law.
Creating single sex spaces is protected under the law, but its not a matter of the Police enforcing it.
If someone sexually male goes into a single-sex space which results in objections then the staff who work there should and do have the legal right to ask them to leave the premises as a result, if they choose to do that. That doesn't require a Police officer.
You raised the objection of safeguarding for the trans individual who doesn't want to go into the male toilets, there is a simple and sensible solution for that normally which is to use the disabled WC instead. Not impose themselves on the women's toilets instead.
Its just a case of everyone being sensible and reasonable.
But the point of laws is the belief that people do not always act sensible and reasonable and therefore policing is necessary.
If someone is accused of being a male, and the staff intervene, and the person denies being male - what do the staff do? How do they escalate? Is this person now in breach of the peace? Of course a police officer would be involved if someone is asked to leave the toilet they believe they should use and refuse to. Again, in that scenario what happens? When a masculine ciswoman is told to leave, how do they argue against that without having to resort to documentation or some investigation into their "biological sex"?. And what happens if they are a ciswoman who has given birth and on such an investigation into their "biological sex" learns they have xy chromosomes?
And what happens if they are a ciswoman who has given birth and on such an investigation into their "biological sex" learns they have xy chromosomes?
A y chromosone in 99.999% (Probably higher) of cases precludes childbirth. Normally any sort of y chromosone indicates sperm production even if presenting as female (I believe Caster Semenya has internal testes for instance giving a higher testerone level than a normal xx female)
There's this from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16934-girl-with-y-chromosome-sheds-light-on-maleness/ 2009 in a case with a girl having a y chromosone and presumed inactive SRY gene. She'll be 21 now so could be having a child (Or trying to have one). I presume if she is fertile then she might have a higher chance of having either a boy or sadly a miscarriage compared to a regular XX woman (Though they're fairly common anyway).
8:15am Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor: We offer 0% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
9:00am Ed Miliband, Shadow Climate Centre Minister: We offer 100% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
Massively messed up or massive falling out?
Same form of words, like them or not.
Rachel, Keir and I are determined to deliver our Green Prosperity Plan, ramping up to £28bn a year in investment in the second half of the parliament at the latest. This plan will transform Britain to cut bills, create jobs, and lead on climate. https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667079092712226817
The tweet you link to does not have those bolded words:
As an aside, I'm happy to report that yesterday was a record day for my solar panels, which produced over 27kwh, roaring past the previous record (Monday) of just over 23kwh. I use about 10kwh a day, so that's 17kwh going to the grid. For complicated reasons, I can't actually get any money for all that yet (and when I do, feed in tarriffs are far from generous: I'll get, what, about a pound a day in summer); but still, 40,000 domestic installations like this will be another GW of capacity on a sunny June day. I'm slightly wary of gridwatch's figures on solar, but even if we take them at face value we are currently (i.e. at 11am today) producing 22% of our electricity through solar, which is more than any other source. I find this pretty remarkable, no?
I hit 27 kwh on the 3rd June. 1809.5 kwh for the ytd. Bloody great cloud over the east of England for the last week !
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."
Indeed. The whole trans shit must have a single main source. That's obvious. That's how propaganda and the culture work at this type of level, as a quick reading of Edward Bernays will illuminate.
It's not even about "US elites" having "gone mad". They may be as mad as hatters, but that's not the causation.
Although she sometimes talks crap, Germaine Greer said something very interesting about the abortion rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. She said big medical capital and in particular embryo research interests were behind it. But, said the interviewer, you and your comrades campaigned hard - didn't your movement have any influence? She said listen, mate, we could have campaigned for 100 years and we wouldn't have got anywhere whatsoever if the embryo research interests hadn't pushed for what they wanted.
Some may be very sceptical when they read that, but look who it was who said it.
(I'm assuming your reference to the Prince and "force" was to Niccolo Machiavelli rather than an allusion to royalty and how they can "force it".)
That's bollocks. I say this as someone who knows/knew multiple people who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK.
And what do you think Germaine Greer says it as? As someone who says stuff off the top of her head about it and posts one-liner sneers in comment columns on the internet? You sound as though you don't have much experience telling the wood from the trees.
8:15am Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor: We offer 0% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
9:00am Ed Miliband, Shadow Climate Centre Minister: We offer 100% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
Massively messed up or massive falling out?
Same form of words, like them or not.
Rachel, Keir and I are determined to deliver our Green Prosperity Plan, ramping up to £28bn a year in investment in the second half of the parliament at the latest. This plan will transform Britain to cut bills, create jobs, and lead on climate. https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667079092712226817
The tweet you link to does not have those bolded words:
Indeed, the idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's toilets is an extreme one.
Did you make a typo when you said that?
The entire stance of the gender critical movement is that they should be so banned. If sex is decided at conception by one's genetics, then no amount of genital origami ("Look! It's a crane") will change that. If one believes that sex=genetics and that toilets be single sex, then it follows ineluctably that post-op transwomen must be banned from women's toilets.
No typo.
AFAIK the mainstream sex concern is that people with a penis should not be allowed in women's-only spaces. Post-op, I do not believe that the concern is as widespread, but pre-op absolutely...But for safeguarding women's-only spaces, I see very few people raising objections to post-op individuals going into a woman's-only space.
What do you think the phrase "biological sex" or "biological male" means?
There has long been a lack of MPs with a background of STEM subjects. With the forthcoming impact of AI, there is a immediate need for MPs with an understanding of computing, digitalisation and big data in general, and AI in particular.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
No. Being able to recite a bit of latin is seen as more worthy by the great and the good.
Of the 541 MPs with higher education degrees in the 2015-2017 Parliament, only 93 (17%) held degrees in STEM subjects; for comparison, 46% of UK students in 2019 graduated in STEM subjects.
Thatcher studied a STEM subject, chemistry, Badenoch studied computer systems engineering, Liam Fox was a doctor, Vince Cable initially studied Natural Sciences so there are/were a few about.
Of course most top STEM graduates can earn more in big corporations and industry and the City or as surgeons and GPs than they can in politics. So the problem is not necessarily politics not trying to attract STEM graduates but STEM graduates not that interested in going into politics (though they can always be used as advisers as scientists were during Covid)
Indeed, the idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's toilets is an extreme one.
Did you make a typo when you said that?
The entire stance of the gender critical movement is that they should be so banned. If sex is decided at conception by one's genetics, then no amount of genital origami ("Look! It's a crane") will change that. If one believes that sex=genetics and that toilets be single sex, then it follows ineluctably that post-op transwomen must be banned from women's toilets.
No typo.
AFAIK the mainstream sex concern is that people with a penis should not be allowed in women's-only spaces. Post-op, I do not believe that the concern is as widespread, but pre-op absolutely...But for safeguarding women's-only spaces, I see very few people raising objections to post-op individuals going into a woman's-only space.
What do you think the phrase "biological sex" or "biological male" means?
8:15am Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor: We offer 0% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
9:00am Ed Miliband, Shadow Climate Centre Minister: We offer 100% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
Massively messed up or massive falling out?
Same form of words, like them or not.
Rachel, Keir and I are determined to deliver our Green Prosperity Plan, ramping up to £28bn a year in investment in the second half of the parliament at the latest. This plan will transform Britain to cut bills, create jobs, and lead on climate. https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667079092712226817
The tweet you link to does not have those bolded words:
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."
Indeed. The whole trans shit must have a single main source. That's obvious. That's how propaganda and the culture work at this type of level, as a quick reading of Edward Bernays will illuminate.
It's not even about "US elites" having "gone mad". They may be as mad as hatters, but that's not the causation.
Although she sometimes talks crap, Germaine Greer said something very interesting about the abortion rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. She said big medical capital and in particular embryo research interests were behind it. But, said the interviewer, you and your comrades campaigned hard - didn't your movement have any influence? She said listen, mate, we could have campaigned for 100 years and we wouldn't have got anywhere whatsoever if the embryo research interests hadn't pushed for what they wanted.
Some may be very sceptical when they read that, but look who it was who said it.
(I'm assuming your reference to the Prince and "force" was to Niccolo Machiavelli rather than an allusion to royalty and how they can "force it".)
That's bollocks. I say this as someone who knows/knew multiple people who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK.
And what do you think Germaine Greer says it as? As someone who says stuff off the top of her head about it and posts one-liner sneers in comment columns on the internet? You sound as though you don't have much experience telling the wood from the trees.
Greer was not involved in the 1967 Abortion Act. She was a student at the time.
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."
Indeed. The whole trans shit must have a single main source. That's obvious. That's how propaganda and the culture work at this type of level, as a quick reading of Edward Bernays will illuminate.
It's not even about "US elites" having "gone mad". They may be as mad as hatters, but that's not the causation.
Although she sometimes talks crap, Germaine Greer said something very interesting about the abortion rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. She said big medical capital and in particular embryo research interests were behind it. But, said the interviewer, you and your comrades campaigned hard - didn't your movement have any influence? She said listen, mate, we could have campaigned for 100 years and we wouldn't have got anywhere whatsoever if the embryo research interests hadn't pushed for what they wanted.
Some may be very sceptical when they read that, but look who it was who said it.
(I'm assuming your reference to the Prince and "force" was to Niccolo Machiavelli rather than an allusion to royalty and how they can "force it".)
That's bollocks. I say this as someone who knows/knew multiple people who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK.
And what do you think Germaine Greer says it as? As someone who says stuff off the top of her head about it and posts one-liner sneers in comment columns on the internet? You sound as though you don't have much experience telling the wood from the trees.
As someone who has not been a particularly reliable commentator in recent decades.
The campaign to legalise abortion long predates Greer's involvement - and she's notably absent from this account. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Rights_(organisation) ...The ALRA's turning point was to gain the support of the Liberal Party MP David Steel, who placed a private members bill through the House of Commons to reform the laws of abortion, choosing this issue over calls to instead amend the law on plumbers or the rights of homosexuals. He cites Alice Jenkin's argument in her book "Law For The Rich" as being pivotal in his decision.[5] Steele put forward a private members bill that was backed by the government and it resulted in the 1967 Abortion Act...
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?
How do you police or enforce this policy? If someone goes to a police officer and says "the law states that this is a woman's only space, and that person is not a woman" how does the police officer, in that moment, go about investigating the truth of that statement before potentially making an arrest?
The same as any law is enforced, primarily by people self-respecting the law.
We don't live in an authoritarian Police state where every law needs to be enforced by the Police all the time.
Do you accept the fact that sex and gender are two different things under the law?
Do you accept that single-sex spaces are acceptable under the law?
If a person is in a shop, and a shop keeper accuses them of stealing and goes to a nearby police officer, the officer can ask the person accused to empty their pockets / bag, ask them what they have done, and detain them for the period of time it takes check the security cameras (if they exist) as evidence. Should there be similar protocol for anyone who is accused of being in the wrong bathroom?
Sex and gender define things that often overlap. I have not read a definition of sex that includes everyone who would be included within a definition of male or female that does not also rely on things that typically come under gender - for example there are ciswomen who can give birth who have xy chromosomes. Nobody would call them men, but they are chromosomally "male". This is because sex and gender are both words created to try and put human experience into clear boxes, and biology typically is messy. Sex and gender are both bimodal - they tend towards two nodes on a scale, but have many things in between - and the more we measure the things we use to define sex, the more we find people who live in that in between.
I accept that the law allows for the provision of single sex spaces where necessary and proportional and if no other option is available. I also don't know based on government and EHRC guidance what they mean by sex when they say this - again, would our ciswoman who is chromosomally male be guided to the mens' room or the womens' room?
Stealing is against the law.
Creating single sex spaces is protected under the law, but its not a matter of the Police enforcing it.
If someone sexually male goes into a single-sex space which results in objections then the staff who work there should and do have the legal right to ask them to leave the premises as a result, if they choose to do that. That doesn't require a Police officer.
You raised the objection of safeguarding for the trans individual who doesn't want to go into the male toilets, there is a simple and sensible solution for that normally which is to use the disabled WC instead. Not impose themselves on the women's toilets instead.
Its just a case of everyone being sensible and reasonable.
But the point of laws is the belief that people do not always act sensible and reasonable and therefore policing is necessary.
If someone is accused of being a male, and the staff intervene, and the person denies being male - what do the staff do? How do they escalate? Is this person now in breach of the peace? Of course a police officer would be involved if someone is asked to leave the toilet they believe they should use and refuse to. Again, in that scenario what happens? When a masculine ciswoman is told to leave, how do they argue against that without having to resort to documentation or some investigation into their "biological sex"?. And what happens if they are a ciswoman who has given birth and on such an investigation into their "biological sex" learns they have xy chromosomes?
And what happens if they are a ciswoman who has given birth and on such an investigation into their "biological sex" learns they have xy chromosomes?
A y chromosone in 99.999% (Probably higher) of cases precludes childbirth. Normally any sort of y chromosone indicates sperm production even if presenting as female (I believe Caster Semenya has internal testes for instance giving a higher testerone level than a normal xx female)
There's this from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16934-girl-with-y-chromosome-sheds-light-on-maleness/ 2009 in a case with a girl having a y chromosone and presumed inactive SRY gene. She'll be 21 now so could be having a child (Or trying to have one). I presume if she is fertile then she might have a higher chance of having either a boy or sadly a miscarriage compared to a regular XX woman (Though they're fairly common anyway).
I provided a citation further down the thread that gave examples of xy women, including who had had children.
And that they are rare is immaterial. They could and likely do use public bathrooms. If your (a general your, not a specific your) definition of sex suggests y chromosome = male (or at least not female), then you (again, general) would be saying many women who live their lives as women, have only known womanhood, who have uteruses (uteri?) and vaginas, are not eligible to use womens’ only spaces.
There has long been a lack of MPs with a background of STEM subjects. With the forthcoming impact of AI, there is a immediate need for MPs with an understanding of computing, digitalisation and big data in general, and AI in particular.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
No. Being able to recite a bit of latin is seen as more worthy by the great and the good.
Of the 541 MPs with higher education degrees in the 2015-2017 Parliament, only 93 (17%) held degrees in STEM subjects; for comparison, 46% of UK students in 2019 graduated in STEM subjects.
Thatcher studied a STEM subject, chemistry, Badenoch studied computer systems engineering, Liam Fox was a doctor, Vince Cable initially studied Natural Sciences so there are/were a few about.
Of course most top STEM graduates can earn more in big corporations and industry and the City or as surgeons and GPs than they can in politics. So the problem is not necessarily politics not trying to attract STEM graduates but STEM graduates not that interested in going into politics (though they can always be used as advisers as scientists were during Covid)
Layla Moran studied physics at Imperial College and worked as a physics teacher, although the commonest degrees for LibDem MPs are law and history.
Now, I said repeatedly on PB that the soft signal rule was completely illogical, as it forced umpires to make a call when they weren't sure about the decision, and that that call then influence the TV umpire – so you you had the blind leading the sited.
I was derided, over and again by the self-proclaimed PB Cricket Experts (who often know very little about cricket).
Yet it appears that ICC agree with me, and have abolished it, for exactly the reasons I stated on here time and again to almost universal derision.
There has long been a lack of MPs with a background of STEM subjects. With the forthcoming impact of AI, there is a immediate need for MPs with an understanding of computing, digitalisation and big data in general, and AI in particular.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
No. Being able to recite a bit of latin is seen as more worthy by the great and the good.
Of the 541 MPs with higher education degrees in the 2015-2017 Parliament, only 93 (17%) held degrees in STEM subjects; for comparison, 46% of UK students in 2019 graduated in STEM subjects.
Thatcher studied a STEM subject, chemistry, Badenoch studied computer systems engineering, Liam Fox was a doctor, Vince Cable initially studied Natural Sciences so there are/were a few about.
Of course most top STEM graduates can earn more in big corporations and industry and the City or as surgeons and GPs than they can in politics. So the problem is not necessarily politics not trying to attract STEM graduates but STEM graduates not that interested in going into politics (though they can always be used as advisers as scientists were during Covid)
Layla Moran studied physics at Imperial College and worked as a physics teacher, although the commonest degrees for LibDem MPs are law and history.
For most MPs I expect the commonest degrees are politics or PPE, followed by law, history and economics/business.
Sunak and Davey did PPE of course, Starmer did law
Indeed, the idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's toilets is an extreme one.
Did you make a typo when you said that?
The entire stance of the gender critical movement is that they should be so banned. If sex is decided at conception by one's genetics, then no amount of genital origami ("Look! It's a crane") will change that. If one believes that sex=genetics and that toilets be single sex, then it follows ineluctably that post-op transwomen must be banned from women's toilets.
No typo.
AFAIK the mainstream sex concern is that people with a penis should not be allowed in women's-only spaces. Post-op, I do not believe that the concern is as widespread, but pre-op absolutely...But for safeguarding women's-only spaces, I see very few people raising objections to post-op individuals going into a woman's-only space.
What do you think the phrase "biological sex" or "biological male" means?
I'll jump in here
Y chromosone, active SRY gene. Sperm production.
All of these, or any one of these?
Does a vasectomy change your sex? Are XX men 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.
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."
Indeed. The whole trans shit must have a single main source. That's obvious. That's how propaganda and the culture work at this type of level, as a quick reading of Edward Bernays will illuminate.
It's not even about "US elites" having "gone mad". They may be as mad as hatters, but that's not the causation.
Although she sometimes talks crap, Germaine Greer said something very interesting about the abortion rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. She said big medical capital and in particular embryo research interests were behind it. But, said the interviewer, you and your comrades campaigned hard - didn't your movement have any influence? She said listen, mate, we could have campaigned for 100 years and we wouldn't have got anywhere whatsoever if the embryo research interests hadn't pushed for what they wanted.
Some may be very sceptical when they read that, but look who it was who said it.
(I'm assuming your reference to the Prince and "force" was to Niccolo Machiavelli rather than an allusion to royalty and how they can "force it".)
That's bollocks. I say this as someone who knows/knew multiple people who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK.
And what do you think Germaine Greer says it as? As someone who says stuff off the top of her head about it and posts one-liner sneers in comment columns on the internet? You sound as though you don't have much experience telling the wood from the trees.
As someone who has not been a particularly reliable commentator in recent decades.
The campaign to legalise abortion long predates Greer's involvement - and she's notably absent from this account. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Rights_(organisation) ...The ALRA's turning point was to gain the support of the Liberal Party MP David Steel, who placed a private members bill through the House of Commons to reform the laws of abortion, choosing this issue over calls to instead amend the law on plumbers or the rights of homosexuals. He cites Alice Jenkin's argument in her book "Law For The Rich" as being pivotal in his decision.[5] Steele put forward a private members bill that was backed by the government and it resulted in the 1967 Abortion Act...
As an aside, I'm happy to report that yesterday was a record day for my solar panels, which produced over 27kwh, roaring past the previous record (Monday) of just over 23kwh. I use about 10kwh a day, so that's 17kwh going to the grid. For complicated reasons, I can't actually get any money for all that yet (and when I do, feed in tarriffs are far from generous: I'll get, what, about a pound a day in summer); but still, 40,000 domestic installations like this will be another GW of capacity on a sunny June day. I'm slightly wary of gridwatch's figures on solar, but even if we take them at face value we are currently (i.e. at 11am today) producing 22% of our electricity through solar, which is more than any other source. I find this pretty remarkable, no?
I hit 27 kwh on the 3rd June. 1809.5 kwh for the ytd. Bloody great cloud over the east of England for the last week !
Nothing but endless sunshine in Greater Manchester! Like the Atacama Desert, only drier.
There has long been a lack of MPs with a background of STEM subjects. With the forthcoming impact of AI, there is a immediate need for MPs with an understanding of computing, digitalisation and big data in general, and AI in particular.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
One of the biggest problems with the obsession with so-called STEM subjects by politicians is that there is much emphasis placed on the third letter and very little on the first two. What you identify, though, is very valid. Political parties ought to look at diversity not just in people's obvious characteristics but also in training and experience. Labour, for example has very very few people with experience in wealth creation, and both parities have very small numbers of people from the armed forces.
A minor polite speculative quibble - but I would have thought the ex-armed forces were more represented in parliament than in the poulation as a whole?
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."
Indeed. The whole trans shit must have a single main source. That's obvious. That's how propaganda and the culture work at this type of level, as a quick reading of Edward Bernays will illuminate.
It's not even about "US elites" having "gone mad". They may be as mad as hatters, but that's not the causation.
Although she sometimes talks crap, Germaine Greer said something very interesting about the abortion rights movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. She said big medical capital and in particular embryo research interests were behind it. But, said the interviewer, you and your comrades campaigned hard - didn't your movement have any influence? She said listen, mate, we could have campaigned for 100 years and we wouldn't have got anywhere whatsoever if the embryo research interests hadn't pushed for what they wanted.
Some may be very sceptical when they read that, but look who it was who said it.
(I'm assuming your reference to the Prince and "force" was to Niccolo Machiavelli rather than an allusion to royalty and how they can "force it".)
That's bollocks. I say this as someone who knows/knew multiple people who worked on the 1967 Abortion Act in the UK.
And what do you think Germaine Greer says it as? As someone who says stuff off the top of her head about it and posts one-liner sneers in comment columns on the internet? You sound as though you don't have much experience telling the wood from the trees.
As someone who has not been a particularly reliable commentator in recent decades.
The campaign to legalise abortion long predates Greer's involvement - and she's notably absent from this account. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Rights_(organisation) ...The ALRA's turning point was to gain the support of the Liberal Party MP David Steel, who placed a private members bill through the House of Commons to reform the laws of abortion, choosing this issue over calls to instead amend the law on plumbers or the rights of homosexuals. He cites Alice Jenkin's argument in her book "Law For The Rich" as being pivotal in his decision.[5] Steele put forward a private members bill that was backed by the government and it resulted in the 1967 Abortion Act...
Indeed, the idea that post-op transwomen should be excluded from women's toilets is an extreme one.
Did you make a typo when you said that?
The entire stance of the gender critical movement is that they should be so banned. If sex is decided at conception by one's genetics, then no amount of genital origami ("Look! It's a crane") will change that. If one believes that sex=genetics and that toilets be single sex, then it follows ineluctably that post-op transwomen must be banned from women's toilets.
No typo.
AFAIK the mainstream sex concern is that people with a penis should not be allowed in women's-only spaces. Post-op, I do not believe that the concern is as widespread, but pre-op absolutely...But for safeguarding women's-only spaces, I see very few people raising objections to post-op individuals going into a woman's-only space.
What do you think the phrase "biological sex" or "biological male" means?
I'll jump in here
Y chromosone, active SRY gene. Sperm production.
All of these, or any one of these?
Does a vasectomy change your sex? Are XX men women?
A vasectomy doesn't affect sperm production I believe. Chopping them off would, but you'd previously had the ability to produce sperm so no that doesn't change your sex. Women don't suddenly stop being women when they go through the menopause.
Comments
Wanting your Grandkids to inherit an unlovable planet is a bit of a strange one though
I thought we were talking about single-sex spaces? Why are you bringing gender into the conversation?
Not quite - it took one look at the true state of the Country's finances and cut things back because after the last set of clowns we don't have any spare money...
Remember that this country is now very similar to Woking where the Tory leadership has over spent, delivered the sum root of sod all and left a very large bill to pay.
But it seems like the story has moved on
I am cognisant that if one side plays by the rules and the other doesn't, then the side that doesn't play by the rules wins (or is more likely to). For example, if one party gerrymanders and the other doesn't, the gerrymanderers do well.
What is the solution here? I would hope the rules could be tightened and condemnation would rain down on the perpetrators, but that hasn't happened yet in the US.
which seems to cover it.
A small nuance but it doesn't say that single sex spaces are protected in law (ie that it is illegal for someone not qualified to enter a single sex space), rather, it says that establishing a single sex space may not be illegal and seeking to prevent people not qualified to enter it not illegal either.
"There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not."
It's not even about "US elites" having "gone mad". They may be as mad as hatters, but that's not the causation.
Although she sometimes talks crap, Germaine Greer said something very interesting about the reform of abortion law around the time of the late 1960s and early 1970s. She said big medical capital and in particular embryo research interests were behind it. But, said the interviewer, you and your comrades campaigned hard - didn't your movement have any influence? She said listen, mate, we could have campaigned for 100 years and we wouldn't have got anywhere whatsoever if the embryo research interests hadn't pushed for what they wanted.
Some may be very sceptical when they read that, but look who it was who said it.
(I'm assuming your reference to the Prince and "force" was to Niccolo Machiavelli rather than an allusion to royalty and how they can "force it".)
Some will deny that the above notion deserves any consideration at all until someone can provide them with chapter and verse "evidence". Poor sods who can't think well.
We don't live in an authoritarian Police state where every law needs to be enforced by the Police all the time.
Do you accept the fact that sex and gender are two different things under the law?
Do you accept that single-sex spaces are acceptable under the law?
Tory love in Sunil /SKS 4EVA
The fact a man, or a trans woman, can walk into a women's bathroom without a genital inspector stood by a door does not mean that it is not designed as a single-sex space.
What the law does is protect from claims of discrimination, on grounds of sex or gender reassignment, service providers who establish single sex spaces, in certain circumstances.
SKS and Austerity Reeves have learnt nothing
SKS Fans at least its not blue Austerity its Red Austerity
Whats the difference
SKS fans Shrugs shoulders
There always is at the Cricket as plenty of people will be at the bars etc even while play is ongoing. Cricket isn't like football.
The amount of empty seats is not the same as the amount of people not there for those seats. At any time there will be a number of empty seats but which seats are empty will vary.
Apparently wouldn't have happened under Labour now in CHB's eyes?
Other than lockdown, last crash was 2008. Wouldn't have happened under Labour in CHB's eyes.
Marking the tercentenary of Adam Smith's birth.
“#AdamSmith's belief in free speech was tempered by respect and empathy for others. We need to be free to think, debate and free to offend. We need to base out critical thinking on facts and science. There is immense value in robust debate; that clash of competing opinions – benefits both society and government.”
[VIDEO]
https://twitter.com/AshReganSNP/status/1666808017592127491?s=20
Sex and gender define things that often overlap. I have not read a definition of sex that includes everyone who would be included within a definition of male or female that does not also rely on things that typically come under gender - for example there are ciswomen who can give birth who have xy chromosones. Nobody would call them men, but they are chromosonally "male". This is because sex and gender are both words created to try and put human experience into clear boxes, and biology typically is messy. Sex and gender are both bimodal - they tend towards two nodes on a scale, but have many things in between - and the more we measure the things we use to define sex, the more we find people who live in that in between.
I accept that the law allows for the provision of single sex spaces where necessary and proportional and if no other option is available. I also don't know based on government and EHRC guidance what they mean by sex when they say this - again, would our ciswoman who is chromosonally male be guided to the mens' room or the womens' room?
(https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/#:~:text=“Girls born with XY chromosomes,few can even give birth.)
I think Bart said "just enforce the law" wrt keeping the right people in the right loos but the EHRC says nothing about this element just, as you say, that having a single sex space may not be illegal.
Creating single sex spaces is protected under the law, but its not a matter of the Police enforcing it.
If someone sexually male goes into a single-sex space which results in objections then the staff who work there should and do have the legal right to ask them to leave the premises as a result, if they choose to do that. That doesn't require a Police officer.
You raised the objection of safeguarding for the trans individual who doesn't want to go into the male toilets, there is a simple and sensible solution for that normally which is to use the disabled WC instead. Not impose themselves on the women's toilets instead.
Its just a case of everyone being sensible and reasonable.
For now it's quite hard (for obvious reasons, since it's a year of more until the next election) to say quite what Labour's spending plans will be.
It is completely inaccurate to say that they've 'cancelled' their green spending, though.
Are the political parties looking for these qualities in selecting their candidates for the next general election?
I had a brief look at the times and I reached the highly tentative conclusion that there are two strands of belief - gender EQ sex and gender NE sex - and that both strands have histories going back decades - as in pre WWII. It's one of those things that one sector of society thinks, and another doesn't. The law thinks they are the same, arts/humanities graduates think they are different.
With respect to the law, there have been two occasions when it has come up on PB.
If a transwoman, who was viewed by most people as a woman, walked into the male toilet most men would be like "sorry, but you're in the wrong loo" and visa versa for a transman. I would therefore argue that they are designed to be gender-segregated and not sex-segregated because people do not know the sex of anyone using the public bathroom and only the gender of them. What is policed (whether socially or by law) is the gender presentation of people - which is why butch ciswomen are also being told to not use the womens' bathrooms because women believe them to be men.
Women can walk into male toilets, its not a problem. Many women do quite frequently, to avoid the queue for the women's too.
If someone who is physically male doesn't want to use the male toilets then there is typically the disabled toilets available as a sex-neutral alternative too.
"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."
Which strongly suggests that you think that for people to "follow the law" they (in law) are not allowed to go into the wrong loo.
If someone is accused of being a male, and the staff intervene, and the person denies being male - what do the staff do? How do they escalate? Is this person now in breach of the peace? Of course a police officer would be involved if someone is asked to leave the toilet they believe they should use and refuse to. Again, in that scenario what happens? When a masculine ciswoman is told to leave, how do they argue against that without having to resort to documentation or some investigation into their "biological sex"? And what happens if they are a ciswoman who has given birth and on such an investigation into their "biological sex" learns they have xy chromosomes?
Of the 541 MPs with higher education degrees in the 2015-2017 Parliament, only 93 (17%) held degrees in STEM subjects; for comparison, 46% of UK students in 2019 graduated in STEM subjects.
The one thing about New Labour was that it at least tried to pay lip service to that essential area of the economy that they didn't understand, and in fact didn't do too bad a job. The problem for Now Labour is that they still despise people who have taken risks to build businesses and like to punish people who generate wealth. In this area they are still not moved on from Corbyn and it is why they will fuck the economy like all other Labour governments have. This will be necessary, regrettably, for the Tories to recover from the disastrous days of Johnson and Truss and come back as the sensible party of government as a juxtaposition to the union loving prizes for all (as long as you are in public sector) Labour Party
9:00am Ed Miliband, Shadow Climate Centre Minister: We offer 100% guarantee we'll spend £28bn a year on Green Investment.
Massively messed up or massive falling out?
The entire stance of the gender critical movement is that they should be so banned. If sex is decided at conception by one's genetics, then no amount of genital origami ("Look! It's a crane") will change that. If one believes that sex=genetics and that toilets be single sex, then it follows ineluctably that post-op transwomen must be banned from women's toilets.
The creation of single-sex spaces is protected under the law. There is no criminal offence of going into the wrong single-sex space though.
If someone doesn't follow a premises policies though, then the staff of the premise are generally entitled to escort the patron out of the building. No police or law required, and since the single-sex space is a protected characteristic in the law, then its not discriminatory to do so AFAIK.
The EHRC wrote to the government suggesting that doing so would bring legal clarity - but needs careful consideration as it may impinge on trans people's rights.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/clarifying-definition-'sex'-equality-act
This has been widely condemned by Stonewall et al, whose grasp of the law is sometimes tenuous at best.
There has been recent coverage suggesting that Sunak may bottle it as "too difficult" - which does rather suggest he's still not got the hang of this "politics" thing. It would put SKS in a fine old pickle.....(and Labour would never do so, given the views of their members, if not their voters).
BJO 2023 SKS will halve the Membership and fail to inspire the support of enough votes at GE 2024 to form a majority
AFAIK the mainstream sex concern is that people with a penis should not be allowed in women's-only spaces. Post-op, I do not believe that the concern is as widespread, but pre-op absolutely.
For sport it remains an issue, due to the matter of fairness, even being post-op doesn't reverse male puberty. But for safeguarding women's-only spaces, I see very few people raising objections to post-op individuals going into a woman's-only space.
But if you say you meant otherwise I am happy to accept your explanation.
See the Electrify America thing - where they had standards, government backing, press releases etc. They haven’t built anywhere near enough actual EV charging spots, though.
Rachel, Keir and I are determined to deliver our Green Prosperity Plan, ramping up to £28bn a year in investment in the second half of the parliament at the latest. This plan will transform Britain to cut bills, create jobs, and lead on climate.
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667079092712226817
Maybe he should resign?
https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667076807558852609?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1667076807558852609|twgr^|twcon^s1_c10&ref_url=file:///data/data/com.guardian/files/politics/live/2023/jun/09/conservatives-labour-rishi-sunak-keir-starmer-boris-johnson-honours-uk-politics-news
Ed Miliband
@Ed_Miliband
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.
9:00 AM · Jun 9, 2023
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2022csoh90.pdf?sfvrsn=8eee302c_1
I use about 10kwh a day, so that's 17kwh going to the grid.
For complicated reasons, I can't actually get any money for all that yet (and when I do, feed in tarriffs are far from generous: I'll get, what, about a pound a day in summer); but still, 40,000 domestic installations like this will be another GW of capacity on a sunny June day. I'm slightly wary of gridwatch's figures on solar, but even if we take them at face value we are currently (i.e. at 11am today) producing 22% of our electricity through solar, which is more than any other source. I find this pretty remarkable, no?
A y chromosone in 99.999% (Probably higher) of cases precludes childbirth. Normally any sort of y chromosone indicates sperm production even if presenting as female (I believe Caster Semenya has internal testes for instance giving a higher testerone level than a normal xx female)
There's this from https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16934-girl-with-y-chromosome-sheds-light-on-maleness/ 2009 in a case with a girl having a y chromosone and presumed inactive SRY gene. She'll be 21 now so could be having a child (Or trying to have one).
I presume if she is fertile then she might have a higher chance of having either a boy or sadly a miscarriage compared to a regular XX woman (Though they're fairly common anyway).
This one does: https://twitter.com/Ed_Miliband/status/1667076807558852609?s=20
Of course most top STEM graduates can earn more in big corporations and industry and the City or as surgeons and GPs than they can in politics. So the problem is not necessarily politics not trying to attract STEM graduates but STEM graduates not that interested in going into politics (though they can always be used as advisers as scientists were during Covid)
Y chromosone, active SRY gene. Sperm production.
The campaign to legalise abortion long predates Greer's involvement - and she's notably absent from this account.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Rights_(organisation)
...The ALRA's turning point was to gain the support of the Liberal Party MP David Steel, who placed a private members bill through the House of Commons to reform the laws of abortion, choosing this issue over calls to instead amend the law on plumbers or the rights of homosexuals. He cites Alice Jenkin's argument in her book "Law For The Rich" as being pivotal in his decision.[5] Steele put forward a private members bill that was backed by the government and it resulted in the 1967 Abortion Act...
And that they are rare is immaterial. They could and likely do use public bathrooms. If your (a general your, not a specific your) definition of sex suggests y chromosome = male (or at least not female), then you (again, general) would be saying many women who live their lives as women, have only known womanhood, who have uteruses (uteri?) and vaginas, are not eligible to use womens’ only spaces.
I have just seen this: https://wisden.com/series-stories/world-test-championship-2021-23/soft-signal-rule-abolished-international-cricket-starting-world-test-championship-wtc-final
Now, I said repeatedly on PB that the soft signal rule was completely illogical, as it forced umpires to make a call when they weren't sure about the decision, and that that call then influence the TV umpire – so you you had the blind leading the sited.
I was derided, over and again by the self-proclaimed PB Cricket Experts (who often know very little about cricket).
Yet it appears that ICC agree with me, and have abolished it, for exactly the reasons I stated on here time and again to almost universal derision.
Funny old world. Huh.
Sunak and Davey did PPE of course, Starmer did law
Does a vasectomy change your sex? Are XX men women?
Discussing anything with these guys is rather like having one's brain sucked out by a straw – it hurts the head and ruins the straw.
Greer gets no mention; my godfather does.
Can you point me to an example of any xx man ?