I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
On 12 Feb 2025 at 23:47:44 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
We can agree to differ on that. But what the young transsexual doctor
*did* say under cross examination was that if a woman did demand a
female doctor he
What would happen if the patient holding the GRC was to be treated by a
man who similarly holds a GRC as female ?
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Feb 2025 at 23:47:44 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
We can agree to differ on that. But what the young transsexual doctor
*did* say under cross examination was that if a woman did demand a
female doctor he
No she didn't.
On 12/02/2025 23:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
I assume that this is a reasonably accurate report: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8j8dygdm19o
I can sympathise with a female member of staff who does not want to see
male genitalia on display in the women's changing rooms. But that ought
to be easily solved if the rooms are properly designed.
I can't sympathise with a patient who says to a doctor or nurse "to me
you look male. I'm not willing to be treated by a male, so I want to be assured that you are in fact female".
To me, that's in the same league as "I refuse to be treated by a black
person / homosexual / person with tattoos".
On 13 Feb 2025 at 01:35:02 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 12 Feb 2025 at 23:47:44 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment >>>>> tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
We can agree to differ on that. But what the young transsexual doctor
*did* say under cross examination was that if a woman did demand a
female doctor he
No she didn't.
Ok she if you like.
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
On 13 Feb 2025 at 09:48:28 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 23:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
I assume that this is a reasonably accurate report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8j8dygdm19o
I can sympathise with a female member of staff who does not want to see
male genitalia on display in the women's changing rooms. But that ought
to be easily solved if the rooms are properly designed.
I can't sympathise with a patient who says to a doctor or nurse "to me
you look male. I'm not willing to be treated by a male, so I want to be
assured that you are in fact female".
To me, that's in the same league as "I refuse to be treated by a black
person / homosexual / person with tattoos".
Nevertheless there are a large number of women who do feel unhappy about being
treated, especially in the case of an intimate examination, by a person who is
physically male. Women are (recognised to be) a group which is discrimated against and have rights that should override the rights of transwomen to be accepted. You might be surprised how many women feel strongly about this, and not just the many who have been subjected to male violence or sexual abuse in the past.
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment tribunal
about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers himself to be a woman
in her changing room. But it raises (though does not actually apply to) the below scenario.
A doctor brought up as a man has a gender recognition certificate (GRC) saying
that he is a women for legal purposes. He comes accross an ill woman who feels
strongly that she only wants to be examined by a woman. There are other women doctors available. The doctor goes to treat the woman. There follow two possible scenarios. Firstly he may complete the treatment and she may believe she has been treated by a woman. AFAICS she has no valid complaint if she later discovers he has an intact adult male body. The second scenario is that he looks like a man to her, and for personal reasons she is terrified. She asks him if he is really a woman. He says yes because the GRC entitles him to do so. It may even be true that if he says he is a man he is guilty of deception, because of the GRC.[1] Which denies him the choice of acknowledging
being a man.
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of women.
Comments?
[1] A compromise would be if he says he used to be a man and still has all or most of the physical attributes of a man. But there is nothing legal or ethical (AFAIK) to compel him to do so. If he does so she may acquiesce in him
treating her or demand to see a woman doctor if there is actually one available. Without this statement from him most people would say he does not have her informed consent to examine her.
On 13 Feb 2025 at 09:48:28 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 23:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
I assume that this is a reasonably accurate report:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8j8dygdm19o
I can sympathise with a female member of staff who does not want to see
male genitalia on display in the women's changing rooms. But that ought
to be easily solved if the rooms are properly designed.
I can't sympathise with a patient who says to a doctor or nurse "to me
you look male. I'm not willing to be treated by a male, so I want to be
assured that you are in fact female".
To me, that's in the same league as "I refuse to be treated by a black
person / homosexual / person with tattoos".
Nevertheless there are a large number of women who do feel unhappy about being
treated, especially in the case of an intimate examination, by a person who is
physically male. Women are (recognised to be) a group which is discrimated against and have rights that should override the rights of transwomen to be accepted. You might be surprised how many women feel strongly about this, and not just the many who have been subjected to male violence or sexual abuse in the past.
On 12/02/2025 23:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
How strange, I have just been reading a report on it.
On 13 Feb 2025 at 10:45:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 12/02/2025 23:47, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-12, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
No such case exists.
How strange, I have just been reading a report on it.
Jon Ribbens is objecting to my summary of the issues being considered.
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems >to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a >new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on >very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they >want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this >society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also >discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of >women.
Comments?
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender
Gender is whatever society and an individual agree between themselves.
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on >> very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they >> want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also
discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of
women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's
a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be
eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:11:48 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender
You don't need to "distinguish" anything. The words do that for you.
Sex is a scientific term based on the presence of chromosomes that decide
the production of gametes (I paraphrase)
Gender is the social constructs associated around the distinctions
produced by the expression of gametes.
Sex cannot be changed.
Gender is whatever society and an individual agree between themselves. As such it is purely a man made construct that has no existence outside the species H.sapiens.
"You cannae change the laws of biology captain"
On 13 Feb 2025 at 17:31:15 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:11:48 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender
You don't need to "distinguish" anything. The words do that for you.
Sex is a scientific term based on the presence of chromosomes that
decide the production of gametes (I paraphrase)
Gender is the social constructs associated around the distinctions
produced by the expression of gametes.
Sex cannot be changed.
Gender is whatever society and an individual agree between themselves.
As such it is purely a man made construct that has no existence outside
the species H.sapiens.
"You cannae change the laws of biology captain"
Fair enough for you to have that view, but the GRA totally contradicts
it. A fully normal male becomes a woman overnight if they are granted a
GRC.
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on >> very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they >> want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also
discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of
women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's
a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be
eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
Mark
On 13/02/2025 16:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on
very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they >>> want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also
discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of >>> women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs >> updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring >> to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is
concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is >> about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's >> a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that >> you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the >> application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to
behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be
eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for >> their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not >> fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of >> that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a
framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But
another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act >> as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their
problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an
issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them.
There is of course a difference between being treated by a clinician and sharing a changing room with a clinician.
Does it amount to "I refuse to share a changing room with you unless and until you show me a valid GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate)". "Oh,
right. Your papers are in order. I am willing to tolerate your presence"?
With all due respect, any attempt to distinguish between sex and gender
is wholly pointless and an attempt to re-define words that already have
a clear, longstanding meaning. I can't see how it would placate the
nervous female who is terrified that the clinician might have a penis
hidden from view within the uniform.
On 13 Feb 2025 at 18:22:43 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 16:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on
very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they >>>> want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also
discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of >>>> women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs >>> updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring >>> to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is
concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is
about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's >>> a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that >>> you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the
application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to >>> behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be
eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for >>> their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not >>> fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of
that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a >>> framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But >>> another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act
as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their
problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an
issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them.
I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny minority" is.
There is of course a difference between being treated by a clinician and
sharing a changing room with a clinician.
Does it amount to "I refuse to share a changing room with you unless and
until you show me a valid GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate)". "Oh,
right. Your papers are in order. I am willing to tolerate your presence"?
With all due respect, any attempt to distinguish between sex and gender
is wholly pointless and an attempt to re-define words that already have
a clear, longstanding meaning. I can't see how it would placate the
nervous female who is terrified that the clinician might have a penis
hidden from view within the uniform.
I think you might be surprised how many woman can recognise a man from habitus
and behaviour, quite apart from genitalia.
I wonder if there is something unique about medical staff or whether
the same arguments might arise if you were asking a lawyer to represent
you, either to give advice or to represent you in court,
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:11:48 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender
You don't need to "distinguish" anything. The words do that for you.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:51:55 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 17:31:15 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:11:48 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender
You don't need to "distinguish" anything. The words do that for you.
Sex is a scientific term based on the presence of chromosomes that
decide the production of gametes (I paraphrase)
Gender is the social constructs associated around the distinctions
produced by the expression of gametes.
Sex cannot be changed.
Gender is whatever society and an individual agree between themselves.
As such it is purely a man made construct that has no existence outside
the species H.sapiens.
"You cannae change the laws of biology captain"
Fair enough for you to have that view, but the GRA totally contradicts
it. A fully normal male becomes a woman overnight if they are granted a
GRC.
No law of man can affect a law of science.
XX=female
XY=male
By all means have a law that makes acceleration due to gravity 0 m/s^2. You'll still fall to the ground.
No law of man can affect a law of science.
XX=female
XY=male
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:37:29 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1625lFno8aU1@mid.individual.net...
I wonder if there is something unique about medical staff or whether
the same arguments might arise if you were asking a lawyer to represent
you, either to give advice or to represent you in court,
" Good afternoon. I've come to ask your advice about a dispute with a
neighbour "
" Oh yes madam I think we should be able to help you with that. If you would >> just go behind the screen please, and take off all your clothes. "
bb
Since the important issue is apparently what they "identify as", not their anatomy, perhaps that will be unhelpful?
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m1625lFno8aU1@mid.individual.net...
I wonder if there is something unique about medical staff or whether
the same arguments might arise if you were asking a lawyer to represent
you, either to give advice or to represent you in court,
" Good afternoon. I've come to ask your advice about a dispute with a neighbour "
" Oh yes madam I think we should be able to help you with that. If you would just go behind the screen please, and take off all your clothes. "
bb
More generally, as far as biology is concerned, sex is defined by function. Sexual reproduction requires two different forms of reproductive cells, otherwise known as gametes. In animals, these are known as eggs and sperm. All mammals (and, for that matter, most higher anumals) can only produce one type of gamete, either eggs or sperm, never both. So a mammal is male if it produces sperm, and female if it produces eggs. The circumstances which led to it producing sperm or eggs are irrelevant. Genetics are the determining factor in humans, but not in all animals.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 19:51:55 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 17:31:15 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 16:11:48 +0000, Mark Goodge wrote:
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender
You don't need to "distinguish" anything. The words do that for you.
Sex is a scientific term based on the presence of chromosomes that
decide the production of gametes (I paraphrase)
Gender is the social constructs associated around the distinctions
produced by the expression of gametes.
Sex cannot be changed.
Gender is whatever society and an individual agree between themselves.
As such it is purely a man made construct that has no existence outside
the species H.sapiens.
"You cannae change the laws of biology captain"
Fair enough for you to have that view, but the GRA totally contradicts
it. A fully normal male becomes a woman overnight if they are granted a
GRC.
No law of man can affect a law of science.
XX=female
XY=male
On 13/02/2025 21:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
More generally, as far as biology is concerned, sex is defined by function. >> Sexual reproduction requires two different forms of reproductive cells,
otherwise known as gametes. In animals, these are known as eggs and sperm. >> All mammals (and, for that matter, most higher anumals) can only produce one >> type of gamete, either eggs or sperm, never both. So a mammal is male if it >> produces sperm, and female if it produces eggs. The circumstances which led >> to it producing sperm or eggs are irrelevant. Genetics are the determining >> factor in humans, but not in all animals.
Those definitions seem to be of little use at birth (or before).
On 13 Feb 2025 at 16:11:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and
needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case
you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as
far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not
part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from
the published media reports. It's a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC
is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years
before making the application. Which means that someone intending to
apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already
had it in order to be eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing
room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their
acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender,
and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based
rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the
absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're
eligible to get it.
Mark
That unfortunately doesn't work. A GRC certificate does not change your gender, it changes your sex.
And deletes any public record that it was ever different. And while it
talks about "living as" your new sex it does not require you to do
anything medical or surgical to alter your original-sex body. And conclusively it does not require you to tell *anyone* about any
previous gender/sex you may have belonged to.
All those above features need changing, whether by repeal or amendment.
On 13 Feb 2025 at 23:04:49 GMT, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 21:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
More generally, as far as biology is concerned, sex is defined by
function. Sexual reproduction requires two different forms of
reproductive cells, otherwise known as gametes. In animals, these
are known as eggs and sperm. All mammals (and, for that matter, most
higher anumals) can only produce one type of gamete, either eggs or
sperm, never both. So a mammal is male if it produces sperm, and
female if it produces eggs. The circumstances which led to it
producing sperm or eggs are irrelevant. Genetics are the determining
factor in humans, but not in all animals.
Those definitions seem to be of little use at birth (or before).
Everyone has their own pet recipe of whatever bit of biology they've
gleaned. There are exceptions to nearly everything.
Why not "sex as recorded at birth"? This very rarely needs altering,
when it does (in rare disorders of sexual development) it is in
childhood and the change is recorded on the register *as an
amendment*. (Unlike the GRA which throws away the original data.)
Sex at birth, or very rarely as modified by a later amendment, has the advantage of *always* being the best medical and parental assessment
of what sex to bring the person up as, and no "experts" with 'O' level biology passes are needed to adjudicate it.
On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 16:11:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and
needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case
you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as
far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not
part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from
the published media reports. It's a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC
is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years
before making the application. Which means that someone intending to
apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already
had it in order to be eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing
room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their
acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender,
and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based
rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the
absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're
eligible to get it.
Mark
That unfortunately doesn't work. A GRC certificate does not change your
gender, it changes your sex.
Wrong. GRA s9(1):
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person,
the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so
that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex
becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person's
sex becomes that of a woman).
And deletes any public record that it was ever different. And while it
talks about "living as" your new sex it does not require you to do
anything medical or surgical to alter your original-sex body. And
conclusively it does not require you to tell *anyone* about any
previous gender/sex you may have belonged to.
All those above features need changing, whether by repeal or amendment.
Wrong. Changing any of those features would be repugnant discrimination
and an abomination.
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:00:46 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 16:11:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and
needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case
you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as
far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not
part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from
the published media reports. It's a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC
is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years
before making the application. Which means that someone intending to
apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already
had it in order to be eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing
room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their
acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it.
Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender,
and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based
rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the
absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're
eligible to get it.
Mark
That unfortunately doesn't work. A GRC certificate does not change your
gender, it changes your sex.
Wrong. GRA s9(1):
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person,
the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so
that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex
becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person's
sex becomes that of a woman).
Ok, quibble. I meant not *just* your gender. Indeed the act appears to make them legally synonymous.
And deletes any public record that it was ever different. And while it
talks about "living as" your new sex it does not require you to do
anything medical or surgical to alter your original-sex body. And
conclusively it does not require you to tell *anyone* about any
previous gender/sex you may have belonged to.
All those above features need changing, whether by repeal or amendment.
Wrong. Changing any of those features would be repugnant discrimination
and an abomination.
So's a mail doctor insisting on using the women's changing room.
On 13/02/2025 21:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
More generally, as far as biology is concerned, sex is defined by function. >> Sexual reproduction requires two different forms of reproductive cells,
otherwise known as gametes. In animals, these are known as eggs and sperm. >> All mammals (and, for that matter, most higher anumals) can only
produce one type of gamete, either eggs or sperm, never both. So a
mammal is male if it produces sperm, and female if it produces eggs.
The circumstances which led to it producing sperm or eggs are
irrelevant. Genetics are the determining factor in humans, but not in
all animals.
Those definitions seem to be of little use at birth (or before).
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:00:46 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 16:11:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and >>>>> needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case
you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as >>>>> far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not
part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from >>>>> the published media reports. It's a more nuanced argument than that. >>>>>
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC
is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years
before making the application. Which means that someone intending to >>>>> apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already >>>>> had it in order to be eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing
room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their >>>>> acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement. >>>>>
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. >>>>> Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender,
and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based
rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the >>>>> absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're
eligible to get it.
Mark
That unfortunately doesn't work. A GRC certificate does not change your >>>> gender, it changes your sex.
Wrong. GRA s9(1):
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person,
the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so >>> that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex
becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person's
sex becomes that of a woman).
Ok, quibble. I meant not *just* your gender. Indeed the act appears to make >> them legally synonymous.
It's hardly a "quibble" - what you said is the opposite of true.
And deletes any public record that it was ever different. And while it >>>> talks about "living as" your new sex it does not require you to doWrong. Changing any of those features would be repugnant discrimination
anything medical or surgical to alter your original-sex body. And
conclusively it does not require you to tell *anyone* about any
previous gender/sex you may have belonged to.
All those above features need changing, whether by repeal or amendment. >>>
and an abomination.
So's a mail doctor insisting on using the women's changing room.
Fortunately, that isn't happening.
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:12:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:00:46 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 16:11:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and >>>>>> needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case
you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as >>>>>> far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not >>>>>> part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from >>>>>> the published media reports. It's a more nuanced argument than that. >>>>>>
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to >>>>>> situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC >>>>>> is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years >>>>>> before making the application. Which means that someone intending to >>>>>> apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already >>>>>> had it in order to be eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing >>>>>> room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their >>>>>> acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement. >>>>>>
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. >>>>>> Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, >>>>>> and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based >>>>>> rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the >>>>>> absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're
eligible to get it.
Mark
That unfortunately doesn't work. A GRC certificate does not change your >>>>> gender, it changes your sex.
Wrong. GRA s9(1):
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, >>>> the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so >>>> that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex
becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person's >>>> sex becomes that of a woman).
Ok, quibble. I meant not *just* your gender. Indeed the act appears to make >>> them legally synonymous.
It's hardly a "quibble" - what you said is the opposite of true.
And deletes any public record that it was ever different. And while it >>>>> talks about "living as" your new sex it does not require you to doWrong. Changing any of those features would be repugnant discrimination >>>> and an abomination.
anything medical or surgical to alter your original-sex body. And
conclusively it does not require you to tell *anyone* about any
previous gender/sex you may have belonged to.
All those above features need changing, whether by repeal or amendment. >>>>
So's a mail doctor insisting on using the women's changing room.
Fortunately, that isn't happening.
Oh but it is. His only claim to being female is self-identification. This is respected by the Scottish public services but has no legal status.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their
problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an
issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them.
There is of course a difference between being treated by a clinician and sharing a changing room with a clinician.
Does it amount to "I refuse to share a changing room with you unless and until you show me a valid GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate)". "Oh,
right. Your papers are in order. I am willing to tolerate your presence"?
With all due respect, any attempt to distinguish between sex and gender
is wholly pointless and an attempt to re-define words that already have
a clear, longstanding meaning. I can't see how it would placate the
nervous female who is terrified that the clinician might have a penis
hidden from view within the uniform.
On 13/02/2025 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 18:22:43 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 16:11, Mark Goodge wrote:I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny minority" is. >>
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on
very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they
want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also
discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of >>>>> women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs >>>> updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring
to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is >>>> concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is
about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's
a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that
you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the
application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to >>>> behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be
eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for >>>> their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not
fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of
that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a >>>> framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But >>>> another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act
as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their
problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an
issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them. >>
You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any statistics?
Would it be men as well as women, objecting to being examined or treated
by trans women? Perhaps they would quite enjoy having their genitals
washed or handled by a female nurse and would be horrified to be told
that it was a trans woman - instead of the frisson of pleasure, there
would be disgust at having been tricked.
There is of course a difference between being treated by a clinician and >>> sharing a changing room with a clinician.
Does it amount to "I refuse to share a changing room with you unless and >>> until you show me a valid GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate)". "Oh,
right. Your papers are in order. I am willing to tolerate your presence"? >>>
With all due respect, any attempt to distinguish between sex and gender
is wholly pointless and an attempt to re-define words that already have
a clear, longstanding meaning. I can't see how it would placate the
nervous female who is terrified that the clinician might have a penis
hidden from view within the uniform.
I think you might be surprised how many woman can recognise a man from habitus
and behaviour, quite apart from genitalia.
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
Whereas we all know, of course, that gay men talk like Alan Carr and
walk with a mincing gait. Easily identified.
On 2025-02-13, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 21:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
More generally, as far as biology is concerned, sex is defined by function. >>> Sexual reproduction requires two different forms of reproductive cells,
otherwise known as gametes. In animals, these are known as eggs and sperm. >>> All mammals (and, for that matter, most higher anumals) can only
produce one type of gamete, either eggs or sperm, never both. So a
mammal is male if it produces sperm, and female if it produces eggs.
The circumstances which led to it producing sperm or eggs are
irrelevant. Genetics are the determining factor in humans, but not in
all animals.
Those definitions seem to be of little use at birth (or before).
Indeed. Which seems appropriate, because gender and/or sex is of little
or no importance at birth (or before).
On 13/02/2025 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 18:22:43 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 16:11, Mark Goodge wrote:I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny minority" is. >>
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on
very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they
want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also
discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of >>>>> women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs >>>> updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring
to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is >>>> concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is
about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's
a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that
you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the
application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to >>>> behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be
eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for >>>> their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not
fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of
that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a >>>> framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But >>>> another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act
as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their
problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an
issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them. >>
You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any statistics?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:8316230685.58d3466c@uninhabited.net...
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:37:29 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1625lFno8aU1@mid.individual.net...
I wonder if there is something unique about medical staff or whether
the same arguments might arise if you were asking a lawyer to represent >>>> you, either to give advice or to represent you in court,
" Good afternoon. I've come to ask your advice about a dispute with a
neighbour "
" Oh yes madam I think we should be able to help you with that. If you would
just go behind the screen please, and take off all your clothes. "
bb
Since the important issue is apparently what they "identify as", not their >> anatomy, perhaps that will be unhelpful?
But before advising the client as to how to best to proceed, its surely incumbent on any lawyer to fully acquaint themselves with any facts,
as may subsequently emerge in Court ?
Rather than being caught with their trousers down, as it were.
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:07:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 18:22:43 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 13/02/2025 16:11, Mark Goodge wrote:I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny minority" is.
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on
very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they
want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also >>>>>> discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of
women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs
updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring
to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is >>>>> concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is
about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's
a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that
you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the
application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to >>>>> behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be >>>>> eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for
their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not
fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of
that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a >>>>> framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But >>>>> another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act
as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their
problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an >>>> issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them. >>>
You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any
statistics?
Would it be men as well as women, objecting to being examined or treated
by trans women? Perhaps they would quite enjoy having their genitals
washed or handled by a female nurse and would be horrified to be told
that it was a trans woman - instead of the frisson of pleasure, there
would be disgust at having been tricked.
straw man 1
There is of course a difference between being treated by a clinician and >>>> sharing a changing room with a clinician.
Does it amount to "I refuse to share a changing room with you unless and >>>> until you show me a valid GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate)". "Oh, >>>> right. Your papers are in order. I am willing to tolerate your presence"? >>>>
With all due respect, any attempt to distinguish between sex and gender >>>> is wholly pointless and an attempt to re-define words that already have >>>> a clear, longstanding meaning. I can't see how it would placate the
nervous female who is terrified that the clinician might have a penis
hidden from view within the uniform.
I think you might be surprised how many woman can recognise a man from habitus
and behaviour, quite apart from genitalia.
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
Whereas we all know, of course, that gay men talk like Alan Carr and
walk with a mincing gait. Easily identified.
straw man 2
Implying anyone who takes my position is either a pervert (straw man 1) or transphobic (straw man 2) is rather unworthy.
Why not complete the triad by doing what the second respondent at the above ET
did, and claim that any woman objecting to being treated by a trans woman was no better than a woman who refused to be treated by a black doctor?
I agree we need to know more about the proportion of women adversely affected,
and this should not be decided by the very special men empowered to speak for womankind.
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:30:29 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:12:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:00:46 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 16:11:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and >>>>>>> needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case >>>>>>> you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as >>>>>>> far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not >>>>>>> part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from >>>>>>> the published media reports. It's a more nuanced argument than that. >>>>>>>
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to >>>>>>> situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC >>>>>>> is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years >>>>>>> before making the application. Which means that someone intending to >>>>>>> apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already >>>>>>> had it in order to be eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing >>>>>>> room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their >>>>>>> acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement. >>>>>>>
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. >>>>>>> Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, >>>>>>> and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based >>>>>>> rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the >>>>>>> absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're
eligible to get it.
Mark
That unfortunately doesn't work. A GRC certificate does not change your >>>>>> gender, it changes your sex.
Wrong. GRA s9(1):
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, >>>>> the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so >>>>> that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex >>>>> becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person's >>>>> sex becomes that of a woman).
Ok, quibble. I meant not *just* your gender. Indeed the act appears to make
them legally synonymous.
It's hardly a "quibble" - what you said is the opposite of true.
And deletes any public record that it was ever different. And while it >>>>>> talks about "living as" your new sex it does not require you to do >>>>>> anything medical or surgical to alter your original-sex body. AndWrong. Changing any of those features would be repugnant discrimination >>>>> and an abomination.
conclusively it does not require you to tell *anyone* about any
previous gender/sex you may have belonged to.
All those above features need changing, whether by repeal or amendment. >>>>>
So's a mail doctor insisting on using the women's changing room.
Fortunately, that isn't happening.
Oh but it is. His only claim to being female is self-identification. This is >> respected by the Scottish public services but has no legal status.
Oh, and I forgot to say, that very question, what is the sex of the good doctor, is going to be decided tomorrow by Scottish Employment Tribunal- or at
least how to decide it will be decided. The have confirmed that it is a question of fact they are required to decide. You are entitled, as far as I know, to disagree with their decision, as am I.
But if they say that the absence of a Gender Recognition Certificate is the crucial factor, will it really make any difference if the same doctor turns up in the same changing room brandishing a newly-issued Gender Recognition Certificate? Should that doctor be obliged to carry it everywhere in case
of objections from other women?
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up with medical
treatment from a trans woman if that makes you uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I
can't see why. Being physically touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person. Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a
trans woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and would be the
equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and discussing one's legal case with a trans
lawyer.
On 13/02/2025 22:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8316230685.58d3466c@uninhabited.net...
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:37:29 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1625lFno8aU1@mid.individual.net...
I wonder if there is something unique about medical staff or whether >>>>> the same arguments might arise if you were asking a lawyer to represent >>>>> you, either to give advice or to represent you in court,
" Good afternoon. I've come to ask your advice about a dispute with a
neighbour "
" Oh yes madam I think we should be able to help you with that. If you would
just go behind the screen please, and take off all your clothes. "
bb
Since the important issue is apparently what they "identify as", not their >>> anatomy, perhaps that will be unhelpful?
But before advising the client as to how to best to proceed, its surely
incumbent on any lawyer to fully acquaint themselves with any facts,
as may subsequently emerge in Court ?
Rather than being caught with their trousers down, as it were.
I think you miss the point - or at any rate, you miss the point I am making.
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a trans woman?
Sharing a changing room or toilet facilities seems to be a scenario that bothers many people.
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you uncomfortable. Is
that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically touched by a trans
woman should not upset any reasonable person. Being in a consulting room
and discussing one's symptoms with a trans woman should be even less of
a problem for any nervous person and would be the equivalent of sitting
in a lawyer's office and discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
On 14/02/2025 00:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:30:29 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:12:21 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2025 at 00:00:46 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-02-13, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 16:11:48 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and >>>>>>>> needs updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case >>>>>>>> you're referring to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as >>>>>>>> far as the law is concerned is still legally a man. But that's not >>>>>>>> part of what the dispute is about, at least as far as I can tell from >>>>>>>> the published media reports. It's a more nuanced argument than that. >>>>>>>>
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to >>>>>>>> situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC >>>>>>>> is that you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years >>>>>>>> before making the application. Which means that someone intending to >>>>>>>> apply for a GRC has to behave, in public at least, as if they already >>>>>>>> had it in order to be eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing >>>>>>>> room or toilet designated for their biological sex rather than their >>>>>>>> acquired gender could be seen as not fully meeting that requirement. >>>>>>>>
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. >>>>>>>> Part of that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, >>>>>>>> and set out a framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based >>>>>>>> rights conflict. But another part of fixing it would be to remove the >>>>>>>> absurdity of needing to act as if you've got it before you're
eligible to get it.
Mark
That unfortunately doesn't work. A GRC certificate does not change your >>>>>>> gender, it changes your sex.
Wrong. GRA s9(1):
Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, >>>>>> the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so
that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex >>>>>> becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person's >>>>>> sex becomes that of a woman).
Ok, quibble. I meant not *just* your gender. Indeed the act appears to make
them legally synonymous.
It's hardly a "quibble" - what you said is the opposite of true.
And deletes any public record that it was ever different. And while it >>>>>>> talks about "living as" your new sex it does not require you to do >>>>>>> anything medical or surgical to alter your original-sex body. And >>>>>>> conclusively it does not require you to tell *anyone* about anyWrong. Changing any of those features would be repugnant discrimination >>>>>> and an abomination.
previous gender/sex you may have belonged to.
All those above features need changing, whether by repeal or amendment. >>>>>>
So's a mail doctor insisting on using the women's changing room.
Fortunately, that isn't happening.
Oh but it is. His only claim to being female is self-identification. This is
respected by the Scottish public services but has no legal status.
Oh, and I forgot to say, that very question, what is the sex of the good
doctor, is going to be decided tomorrow by Scottish Employment Tribunal- or at
least how to decide it will be decided. The have confirmed that it is a
question of fact they are required to decide. You are entitled, as far as I >> know, to disagree with their decision, as am I.
Yes, it will be interesting to read the judgment of the tribunal.
But if they say that the absence of a Gender Recognition Certificate is
the crucial factor, will it really make any difference if the same
doctor turns up in the same changing room brandishing a newly-issued
Gender Recognition Certificate? Should that doctor be obliged to carry
it everywhere in case of objections from other women?
On 13/02/2025 21:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:07:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 18:22:43 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 13/02/2025 16:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on
very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they
want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also >>>>>>> discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of
women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs
updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring
to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is >>>>>> concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is
about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's
a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to >>>>>> situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that
you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the
application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to
behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be >>>>>> eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for
their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not
fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of
that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a
framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But
another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act
as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their >>>>> problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an >>>>> issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them.
I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny minority" is.
You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any
statistics?
Would it be men as well as women, objecting to being examined or treated >>> by trans women? Perhaps they would quite enjoy having their genitals
washed or handled by a female nurse and would be horrified to be told
that it was a trans woman - instead of the frisson of pleasure, there
would be disgust at having been tricked.
straw man 1
Calling it a straw man is convenient for you but does not make it a
straw man.
You appear to be saying - unless I've misunderstood you - that women
have a reasonable and well-founded objection to being given medical
treatment by a trans female clinician. I think you regard it as obvious
that some women would feel that way. But you don't address the point
that some men might also feel that way. Do you regard any objections
from male patients as unimportant or unworthy? Do you say that a male
patient feeling upset about being washed or dressed by a trans woman is merely bigoted and prejudiced whereas a woman patient is deserving of sympathy?
snip
On 14/02/2025 00:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
Oh, and I forgot to say, that very question, what is the sex of the good
doctor, is going to be decided tomorrow by Scottish Employment
Tribunal- or at least how to decide it will be decided. The have
confirmed that it is a question of fact they are required to decide.
You are entitled, as far as I know, to disagree with their decision,
as am I.
Yes, it will be interesting to read the judgment of the tribunal.
But if they say that the absence of a Gender Recognition Certificate is
the crucial factor, will it really make any difference if the same
doctor turns up in the same changing room brandishing a newly-issued
Gender Recognition Certificate? Should that doctor be obliged to carry
it everywhere in case of objections from other women?
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:07:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 18:22:43 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 13/02/2025 16:11, Mark Goodge wrote:I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny minority" is.
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on
very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they
want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also >>>>>> discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of
women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs
updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring
to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is >>>>> concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is
about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's
a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to
situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that
you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the
application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to >>>>> behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be >>>>> eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for
their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not
fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of
that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a >>>>> framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But >>>>> another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act
as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their
problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an >>>> issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them. >>>
You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any
statistics?
Would it be men as well as women, objecting to being examined or treated
by trans women? Perhaps they would quite enjoy having their genitals
washed or handled by a female nurse and would be horrified to be told
that it was a trans woman - instead of the frisson of pleasure, there
would be disgust at having been tricked.
straw man 1
There is of course a difference between being treated by a clinician and >>>> sharing a changing room with a clinician.
Does it amount to "I refuse to share a changing room with you unless and >>>> until you show me a valid GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate)". "Oh, >>>> right. Your papers are in order. I am willing to tolerate your presence"? >>>>
With all due respect, any attempt to distinguish between sex and gender >>>> is wholly pointless and an attempt to re-define words that already have >>>> a clear, longstanding meaning. I can't see how it would placate the
nervous female who is terrified that the clinician might have a penis
hidden from view within the uniform.
I think you might be surprised how many woman can recognise a man from habitus
and behaviour, quite apart from genitalia.
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
Whereas we all know, of course, that gay men talk like Alan Carr and
walk with a mincing gait. Easily identified.
straw man 2
Implying anyone who takes my position is either a pervert (straw man 1) or transphobic (straw man 2) is rather unworthy.
Why not complete the triad by doing what the second respondent at the above ET
did, and claim that any woman objecting to being treated by a trans woman was no better than a woman who refused to be treated by a black doctor?
I agree we need to know more about the proportion of women adversely affected,
and this should not be decided by the very special men empowered to speak for womankind.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up
with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically
touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person.
Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans
woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and
would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other
things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word
for it.
Have they ?
On a side note, I might be tempted to suggest that the survey figure
of 34% of women who feel uncomfortable using shared facuiliies might
be a gross underestimate Simply on the basis that the survey was
conducted under the auspices of the Equality and Human Rights
Commission.
Such that many women completing the survey might be loth to admit
their true feelings on the topic, were this to be interpreted as their denying someone a supposed "human right".
Returning to the thread title, one effect of all this nonsense has been
to re marginalise the disabled. Since the path of least resistance to accommodating this bollocks is "quickly, make the accessible toilets
'gender neutral'" in quite a few organisations.
This reducing the availability of that resource to the disabled.
Returning to the thread title, one effect of all this nonsense has been
to re marginalise the disabled. Since the path of least resistance to accommodating this bollocks is "quickly, make the accessible toilets
'gender neutral'" in quite a few organisations.
This reducing the availability of that resource to the disabled.
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Returning to the thread title, one effect of all this nonsense has been
to re marginalise the disabled. Since the path of least resistance to
accommodating this bollocks is "quickly, make the accessible toilets
'gender neutral'" in quite a few organisations.
This reducing the availability of that resource to the disabled.
... by an incredibly small amount, given the very small number of trans people that exist.
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Returning to the thread title, one effect of all this nonsense has been
to re marginalise the disabled. Since the path of least resistance to
accommodating this bollocks is "quickly, make the accessible toilets
'gender neutral'" in quite a few organisations.
This reducing the availability of that resource to the disabled.
... by an incredibly small amount, given the very small number of trans people that exist.
On 14/02/2025 09:13, The Todal wrote:
On 13/02/2025 22:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8316230685.58d3466c@uninhabited.net...
Since the important issue is apparently what they "identify as", not
their
anatomy, perhaps that will be unhelpful?
But before advising the client as to how to best to proceed, its surely
incumbent on any lawyer to fully acquaint themselves with any facts,
as may subsequently emerge in Court ?
Rather than being caught with their trousers down, as it were.
I think you miss the point - or at any rate, you miss the point I am
making.
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a
trans woman?
Sharing a changing room or toilet facilities seems to be a scenario that
bothers many people.
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up with
medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you uncomfortable. Is
that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically touched by a trans
woman should not upset any reasonable person. Being in a consulting room
and discussing one's symptoms with a trans woman should be even less of
a problem for any nervous person and would be the equivalent of sitting
in a lawyer's office and discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
The planning department at the council responsible for the village in
which I live and a neighbouring village have recently approved planning permission for an Eruv because there is a small, but well-funded and well-represented, number of strict Orthodox Jews living here.
(According to the planning application and associated paperwork, there
are around 12 families.)
I am friendly with a couple of these families, one of whom adheres to
the law of Negiah in its strictest form. I discovered this when I went
to shake the hand of a female adherent of Negiah who declined my
outstretched hand. At the time, I lacked knowledge of the situation and offered to bump elbows instead.
She then explained that as an adherent of strict Negiah the only males
that she will touch deliberately are her husband and close male
relatives, (her father, grandfather, brother(s), son(s), and grandson(s)).
Assume she went to hospital for a routine appointment [^1] and, owing to
her strict religious beliefs, insisted upon being seen by a female doctor.
The five requirements of consent are that it must be:
(1) Freely given;
(2) Informed;
(3) Specific;
(4) Unambiguous; and
(5) Verifiable.
You, I and others may not consider her objections to being touched by a
male to be reasonable and legitimate, but neither of those are
requirements of consent.
She is 18 years of age, or older, and clearly has capacity to consent to
or refuse treatment. She consents only to being touched by a female
doctor and refuses to be touched by a male doctor.
If she is subsequently examined by a trans female doctor, does she have
a case for a claim of assault against the relevant NHS Trust for
deliberately and wilfully violating her consent?
Is the situation altered if the trans female doctor has a GRC?
Whose rights take precedence and why?
Discuss.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] Thereby ensuring Talmud Bavli Sotah 21b does not apply which waives
the prohibition to save a person in life-threatening danger.
On 14 Feb 2025 at 11:25:19 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-14, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Returning to the thread title, one effect of all this nonsense has been
to re marginalise the disabled. Since the path of least resistance to
accommodating this bollocks is "quickly, make the accessible toilets
'gender neutral'" in quite a few organisations.
This reducing the availability of that resource to the disabled.
... by an incredibly small amount, given the very small number of trans
people that exist.
In the current ET case it was the whole female workforce who were
expected to use the disabled facilities if they did not want to
undress in front a man, as the NHS organisation decided that they
could not ask the transwoman to cease using the female changing room.
On 14/02/2025 09:13, The Todal wrote:
On 13/02/2025 22:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8316230685.58d3466c@uninhabited.net...
Since the important issue is apparently what they "identify as", not
their
anatomy, perhaps that will be unhelpful?
But before advising the client as to how to best to proceed, its surely
incumbent on any lawyer to fully acquaint themselves with any facts,
as may subsequently emerge in Court ?
Rather than being caught with their trousers down, as it were.
I think you miss the point - or at any rate, you miss the point I am
making.
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with
a trans woman?
Sharing a changing room or toilet facilities seems to be a scenario
that bothers many people.
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up
with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically
touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person. Being
in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans woman
should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and would be
the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and discussing one's
legal case with a trans lawyer.
The planning department at the council responsible for the village in
which I live and a neighbouring village have recently approved planning permission for an Eruv because there is a small, but well-funded and well-represented, number of strict Orthodox Jews living here. (According
to the planning application and associated paperwork, there are around
12 families.)
I am friendly with a couple of these families, one of whom adheres to
the law of Negiah in its strictest form. I discovered this when I went
to shake the hand of a female adherent of Negiah who declined my
outstretched hand. At the time, I lacked knowledge of the situation and offered to bump elbows instead.
She then explained that as an adherent of strict Negiah the only males
that she will touch deliberately are her husband and close male
relatives, (her father, grandfather, brother(s), son(s), and grandson(s)).
Assume she went to hospital for a routine appointment [^1] and, owing to
her strict religious beliefs, insisted upon being seen by a female doctor.
The five requirements of consent are that it must be:
(1) Freely given;
(2) Informed;
(3) Specific;
(4) Unambiguous; and
(5) Verifiable.
You, I and others may not consider her objections to being touched by a
male to be reasonable and legitimate, but neither of those are
requirements of consent.
She is 18 years of age, or older, and clearly has capacity to consent to
or refuse treatment. She consents only to being touched by a female
doctor and refuses to be touched by a male doctor.
If she is subsequently examined by a trans female doctor, does she have
a case for a claim of assault against the relevant NHS Trust for
deliberately and wilfully violating her consent?
Is the situation altered if the trans female doctor has a GRC?
Whose rights take precedence and why?
Discuss.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] Thereby ensuring Talmud Bavli Sotah 21b does not apply which waives
the prohibition to save a person in life-threatening danger.
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up
with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically
touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person.
Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans
woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and
would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other
things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word
for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
On a side note, I might be tempted to suggest that the survey figure
of 34% of women who feel uncomfortable using shared facuiliies might
be a gross underestimate Simply on the basis that the survey was
conducted under the auspices of the Equality and Human Rights
Commission.
Such that many women completing the survey might be loth to admit
their true feelings on the topic, were this to be interpreted as their
denying someone a supposed "human right".
Do you seriously think the questioners told respondents "The Human
Rights Commission demands to know if you support human rights?" The
data was collected as part of the British Social Attitudes survey
carried out by the National Centre for Social Research, so if they
were told who the survey was for then presumably that is who they
were told was behind it.
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up
with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically
touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person.
Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans
woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and
would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other
things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word
for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
On a side note, I might be tempted to suggest that the survey figure
of 34% of women who feel uncomfortable using shared facuiliies might
be a gross underestimate Simply on the basis that the survey was
conducted under the auspices of the Equality and Human Rights
Commission.
Such that many women completing the survey might be loth to admit
their true feelings on the topic, were this to be interpreted as their
denying someone a supposed "human right".
Do you seriously think the questioners told respondents "The Human
Rights Commission demands to know if you support human rights?"
In the current ET case it was the whole female workforce who were expected to
use the disabled facilities if they did not want to undress in front a man, as the NHS organisation decided that they could not ask the transwoman to cease using the female changing room.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvqu80o.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up
with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically
touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person.
Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans
woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and
would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other
things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word
for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
You know best, in other words.
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqu80o.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up
with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically >>>>> touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person.
Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans >>>>> woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and
would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other
things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word
for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
You know best, in other words.
Huh? What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about me.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvqunp4.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqu80o.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up >>>>>> with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically >>>>>> touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person.
Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans >>>>>> woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and
would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other >>>>> things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word
for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
You know best, in other words.
Huh? What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about me.
You have just stated, *that in your opinion*, people do have a choice
as to whether they accept other peoples' claims to feel differently
about things.
On 13/02/2025 21:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
More generally, as far as biology is concerned, sex is defined by function. >> Sexual reproduction requires two different forms of reproductive cells,
otherwise known as gametes. In animals, these are known as eggs and sperm. >> All mammals (and, for that matter, most higher anumals) can only produce one >> type of gamete, either eggs or sperm, never both. So a mammal is male if it >> produces sperm, and female if it produces eggs. The circumstances which led >> to it producing sperm or eggs are irrelevant. Genetics are the determining >> factor in humans, but not in all animals.
Those definitions seem to be of little use at birth (or before).
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqunp4.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqu80o.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up >>>>>>> with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically >>>>>>> touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person. >>>>>>> Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans >>>>>>> woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and >>>>>>> would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other >>>>>> things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word >>>>>> for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
You know best, in other words.
Huh? What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about me.
You have just stated, *that in your opinion*, people do have a choice
as to whether they accept other peoples' claims to feel differently
about things.
And in what way does that mean "I know best"? I was basically agreeing
with your statement - does that mean that you "know best" as well?
This whole conversation is bizarre.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:04:49 +0000, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 21:56, Mark Goodge wrote:
More generally, as far as biology is concerned, sex is defined by function. >>> Sexual reproduction requires two different forms of reproductive cells,
otherwise known as gametes. In animals, these are known as eggs and sperm. >>> All mammals (and, for that matter, most higher anumals) can only produce one
type of gamete, either eggs or sperm, never both. So a mammal is male if it >>> produces sperm, and female if it produces eggs. The circumstances which led >>> to it producing sperm or eggs are irrelevant. Genetics are the determining >>> factor in humans, but not in all animals.
Those definitions seem to be of little use at birth (or before).
At birth (or before) you typically just look at the visible physical body. That will, for at least 99.9% of the time, reliably indicate the underlying physical structure. It's only in cases where the visible appearance is in some way ambiguous that you need to investigate further.
This isn't particularly new. The science of sexual reproduction has been understood for a long time, as have various sexual developmental disorders (or differences in sexual development, to use the now preferred and less-judgmental term) which result in intersex conditions. Nor does it have any significant bearing on the trans debate. The vast majority of people who present symptoms of gender dysphoria or otherwise identify as a different gender to their biological sex do not have any form of DSD, at least as far as their physical body is concerned. if the GRA only applied to people with DSD we wouldn't be having this debate.
Mark
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqunp4.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqu80o.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up >>>>>>> with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically >>>>>>> touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person. >>>>>>> Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans >>>>>>> woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and >>>>>>> would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other >>>>>> things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word >>>>>> for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
You know best, in other words.
Huh? What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about me.
You have just stated, *that in your opinion*, people do have a choice
as to whether they accept other peoples' claims to feel differently
about things.
And in what way does that mean "I know best"? I was basically agreeing
with your statement - does that mean that you "know best" as well?
This whole conversation is bizarre.
On 14 Feb 2025 at 18:56:56 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqunp4.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqu80o.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up >>>>>>>> with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically >>>>>>>> touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person. >>>>>>>> Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans >>>>>>>> woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and >>>>>>>> would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other >>>>>>> things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word >>>>>>> for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
You know best, in other words.
Huh? What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about me.
You have just stated, *that in your opinion*, people do have a choice
as to whether they accept other peoples' claims to feel differently
about things.
And in what way does that mean "I know best"? I was basically agreeing
with your statement - does that mean that you "know best" as well?
This whole conversation is bizarre.
The "not really, no" was highly ambiguous. It could mean "no they
don't really have choice" or it could mean "no it's not really true
that they don't have a choice".
I honestly don't know which is true, but my guess would be the
opposite of Mr Bookcase's assumption.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:01:06 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1758pFt7poU1@mid.individual.net...
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their >>>>> problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an >>>>> issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them.
I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny minority" is.
You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any statistics?
The latest available appear to be -
quote:
Published: 10 August 2020
The proportion of women who reported themselves to be comfortable with a
transgender woman using women's public toilet *decreased* from 72% to 66%. >>
unquote
So a minority of 34% who are uncomfortable with shared use toilets
Public toilets have cubicles which is rather different to a shared
changing area.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/new-research-reveals-positive-attitudes-towards-transgender-people
snip
bb
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:55:20 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:07:37 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 13/02/2025 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 13 Feb 2025 at 18:22:43 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 13/02/2025 16:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>
This would seem to me to be totally unacceptable to very many women. It seems
to be a justification for immediate repeal of the GRA and its replacement by a
new law recognising the needs of women, as well as those trans-women, but on
very different terms to the current Act. Both parties cannot have all they
want, and women are recognised to be a group suffering discrimination in this
society. Certainly I respect the rights of trans women who are also >>>>>>> discriminated against, but their rights under the GRA trample on those of
women.
Comments?
I wouldn't go that far. I do think that the GRA is deeply flawed and needs
updating. But the GRA isn't directly the issue in the case you're referring
to. The doctor in question doesn't have a GRC, so as far as the law is >>>>>> concerned is still legally a man. But that's not part of what the dispute is
about, at least as far as I can tell from the published media reports. It's
a more nuanced argument than that.
Having said that, I do think that the GRA is part of what leads to >>>>>> situations like this. One of the eligibility requirements for a GRC is that
you must have "lived in the acquired gender" for two years before making the
application. Which means that someone intending to apply for a GRC has to
behave, in public at least, as if they already had it in order to be >>>>>> eligible for it. Someone who uses a changing room or toilet designated for
their biological sex rather than their acquired gender could be seen as not
fully meeting that requirement.
So my solution wouldn't be to repeal the GRA, it would be to fix it. Part of
that fixing would be to distinguish between sex and gender, and set out a
framework for when sex-based rights and gender-based rights conflict. But
another part of fixing it would be to remove the absurdity of needing to act
as if you've got it before you're eligible to get it.
I'm not persuaded that the GRA is deeply flawed.
I doubt if most people care whether the clinician dealing with their >>>>> problem is male, female, transgender or non-binary. It shouldn't be an >>>>> issue at all. Except maybe for a tiny minority who say it matters to them.
I think you would be really surprised as to how big that "tiny minority" is.
You're absolutely right. I would be really surprised. Are there any
statistics?
Would it be men as well as women, objecting to being examined or treated >>> by trans women? Perhaps they would quite enjoy having their genitals
washed or handled by a female nurse and would be horrified to be told
that it was a trans woman - instead of the frisson of pleasure, there
would be disgust at having been tricked.
straw man 1
There is of course a difference between being treated by a clinician and >>>>> sharing a changing room with a clinician.
Does it amount to "I refuse to share a changing room with you unless and >>>>> until you show me a valid GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate)". "Oh, >>>>> right. Your papers are in order. I am willing to tolerate your presence"? >>>>>
With all due respect, any attempt to distinguish between sex and gender >>>>> is wholly pointless and an attempt to re-define words that already have >>>>> a clear, longstanding meaning. I can't see how it would placate the >>>>> nervous female who is terrified that the clinician might have a penis >>>>> hidden from view within the uniform.
I think you might be surprised how many woman can recognise a man from habitus
and behaviour, quite apart from genitalia.
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are >>> that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
Whereas we all know, of course, that gay men talk like Alan Carr and
walk with a mincing gait. Easily identified.
straw man 2
Implying anyone who takes my position is either a pervert (straw man 1) or >> transphobic (straw man 2) is rather unworthy.
Why not complete the triad by doing what the second respondent at the above ET
did, and claim that any woman objecting to being treated by a trans woman was
no better than a woman who refused to be treated by a black doctor?
I agree we need to know more about the proportion of women adversely affected,
and this should not be decided by the very special men empowered to speak for
womankind.
Sorry, there is an obvious typo in this. Straw man 2 is accusing a person who is concerned about trans women of being *homophobic*, not transphobic.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Returning to the thread title, one effect of all this nonsense has been
to re marginalise the disabled. Since the path of least resistance to accommodating this bollocks is "quickly, make the accessible toilets
'gender neutral'" in quite a few organisations.
This reducing the availability of that resource to the disabled.
In much the same way that requiring buses to provide wheelchair spaces
turned out to be a boon to the "baby system" crowd I regularly see
clogging such spaces up as I am now an enforced bus user.
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >>> trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But
actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to
unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the
nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans
people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to
the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their partners or family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing the tiny number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
On 14 Feb 2025 at 18:56:56 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqunp4.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvqu80o.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-14, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m18fouF57hlU1@mid.individual.net...
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up >>>>>>>> with medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you
uncomfortable. Is that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically >>>>>>>> touched by a trans woman should not upset any reasonable person. >>>>>>>> Being in a consulting room and discussing one's symptoms with a trans >>>>>>>> woman should be even less of a problem for any nervous person and >>>>>>>> would be the equivalent of sitting in a lawyer's office and
discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Apparently men and women can feel differently about this.
As apparently they can also feel differently about a number of other >>>>>>> things.
However each has no real choice but to take the other person's word >>>>>>> for it.
Have they ?
Not really, no.
You know best, in other words.
Huh? What are you talking about? I didn't say anything about me.
You have just stated, *that in your opinion*, people do have a choice
as to whether they accept other peoples' claims to feel differently
about things.
And in what way does that mean "I know best"? I was basically agreeing
with your statement - does that mean that you "know best" as well?
This whole conversation is bizarre.
The "not really, no" was highly ambiguous. It could mean "no they don't really
have choice" or it could mean "no it's not really true that they don't have a choice".
I honestly don't know which is true, but my guess would be the opposite of Mr Bookcase's assumption.
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >>>> trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be
admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But
actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to
unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But
nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the
nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the
bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans
people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to
the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their partners or
family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing the tiny
number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that it is usually men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are >> scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
bb
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:6341351228.39b21197@uninhabited.net...
On 14 Feb 2025 at 18:56:56 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
And in what way does that mean "I know best"? I was basically agreeing
with your statement - does that mean that you "know best" as well?
This whole conversation is bizarre.
The "not really, no" was highly ambiguous. It could mean "no they
don't really have choice" or it could mean "no it's not really true
that they don't have a choice".
I honestly don't know which is true, but my guess would be the
opposite of Mr Bookcase's assumption.
All I can say, is that I welcpme this apparent complete change of
attitude, on Mr Ribbens' part.
Where previously he dismissed the opinions of "these women" and those
of unnamed millionaire authors as being of little or no account, it
appears now that he is prepared to concede that they may indeed have a
point, after all.
And that their views must be accommodated in some meaningful way, rather
than being simply ignored as before.
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are >>> scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception
Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
My initial thoughts are that if medical services are provided free of
charge at source then we, as patients, should not be specifying the
gender of who we receive treatment from.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I think you miss the point - or at any rate, you miss the point I am making.
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >trans woman?
Sharing a changing room or toilet facilities seems to be a scenario that >bothers many people.
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up with >medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you uncomfortable. Is
that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically touched by a trans
woman should not upset any reasonable person. Being in a consulting room
and discussing one's symptoms with a trans woman should be even less of
a problem for any nervous person and would be the equivalent of sitting
in a lawyer's office and discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of a
trans woman in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable basis for
such an objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging the curiosity
of a patient who says "you're dressed as female but I think you look a
bit male. Are you in fact a trans woman? Can I see your certificate?"
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:24:47 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
My initial thoughts are that if medical services are provided free of
charge at source then we, as patients, should not be specifying the
gender of who we receive treatment from.
At the moment, we already do have that choice (unless the circumstances make it impractical), and there are very good reasons for allowing us that
choice. It isn't necessary to have a religious belief in order to exercise that choice, although sincerely held religious beliefs do affect how and
when that choice is exercised.
The issue here is not whether patients can choose the gender of the person seeing them, because that choice already exists and there are no plans to change that. The issue here is whether that choice:
a) means an absolute right to be seen by someone of a particular biological
sex, irrespective of their gender identity or possession of a GRC;
b) means a right to be seen by someone of a particular legal sex, whether
documented on a birth certificate or GRC, but not a right to be seen
by someone of a particular biological sex where that is different to
their legal sex; or
c) means only a right to be seen by someone of a particular gender
identity, irrespective of that person's legal or biological sex.
At the moment, I think the courts would probably decide that (b) is the
right answer, as that's pretty much what the GRA says. But there are people who would argue for (a), and others who would argue for (c).
Mark
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think you miss the point - or at any rate, you miss the point I am making. >>
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a
trans woman?
In the majority of circumstances, none. But there are some where the objection is legitimate, even if you or I would not necessarily share it.
Sharing a changing room or toilet facilities seems to be a scenario that
bothers many people.
To some extent, this may be considered an unreasonable objection. However, this has to be seen in the context that the overwhelming majority of sexual offences - and, in particular sexual assaults - are committed by men. Or, rather, people with penises. Even if the quantifiable risk is low,
therefore, many women (or, rather, people without penises) feel
uncomfortable being in a position of potential vulnerability when there is a person with a penis present. Toilets are probably less of an issue, given that any exposure generally takes place within the confines of a cubicle.
But many people without pensises feel very uncomfortable getting changed - even if it doesn't require full nudity - in the presence of a person with a penis.
To some extent, this reflects the asymmetry of legislation around voyeurism and indecent exposure. Voyeurism, while technically capable of being committed by anyone, is in reality overwhelmingly committed by men ogling women. And, equally, while indecent exposure can technically be committed by anyone, the vast majority of cases are men exposing themselves to women.
Now, this may be seen as unreasonable. If I walk around in the high street wearing clothing which, from certain angles, exposes my cock, then I'm the one who is likely to get in trouble for doing so, not the person who takes advantage of that angle and looks at it. But if a woman walks around in the high street wearing clothing which, from certain angles, exposes even her underwear, then, again, I'm the one who will get in trouble if I take advantage of that angle and look at it. We've had discussions in this very newsgroup about the inequality of the upskirting law, for example. Nonetheless, the law is asymmetric in that respect, and there are plenty of people who will be entirely happy to explain why it is and, indeed, why it should be.
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up with
medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you uncomfortable. Is
that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically touched by a trans
woman should not upset any reasonable person. Being in a consulting room
and discussing one's symptoms with a trans woman should be even less of
a problem for any nervous person and would be the equivalent of sitting
in a lawyer's office and discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Again, this goes back to perception. There is a general principle in healthcare that, as far as possible, the patient should be put at their ease and feel comfortable in a clinical environment (insofar as you can feel comfortable when you're being prodded and poked and having needles stuck in you). And one aspect of that is that if a patient feels more comfortable being seen by someone of their own sex, then, unless it's impractical in those particular circumstances, they should be allowed to be seen by someone of their own sex. Even if the consultation doesn't include any exposure of private parts by either the medic or the patient.
Although this choice is available to all patients, in reality it tends to be exercised more by women. Men may feel more comfortable discussing some things, for example impotence and other sexual issues, with a male doctor than a female doctor, but other than that they don't really care much about having a female doctor poke and prod them. Women, on the other hand, are
more likely to request a female doctor even for non-sexual matters, particularly if it involves parts of their body that are normally considered private. You can argue that this asymmetry is unreasonable, but it happens.
A comparison with lawyers doesn't really work here. Unlesss I'm unlucky enough to be banged up in a cell at the local police station waiting for the duty brief to arrive, I generally have a choice of which law firm to use.
But I only have limited choice as to which GP surgery I'm registered with, and practically no choice as to where I go if I end up needing hospital treatment. So any choice has to be exercised at point of delivery rather
than selection.
What it boils down to, really, is that there are already many cases where
the law (and common practice) recognises that women tend to make different choices to men, and that they should be allowed to make those different choices even if, to a man, the choice may seem irrational.
Mark
On 2025-02-14, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2025 00:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
Oh, and I forgot to say, that very question, what is the sex of the good >>> doctor, is going to be decided tomorrow by Scottish Employment
Tribunal- or at least how to decide it will be decided. The have
confirmed that it is a question of fact they are required to decide.
You are entitled, as far as I know, to disagree with their decision,
as am I.
Yes, it will be interesting to read the judgment of the tribunal.
But if they say that the absence of a Gender Recognition Certificate is
the crucial factor, will it really make any difference if the same
doctor turns up in the same changing room brandishing a newly-issued
Gender Recognition Certificate? Should that doctor be obliged to carry
it everywhere in case of objections from other women?
... and should cis women who are sometimes mistakenly thought to be
men or trans women have to carry their birth certificates around at
all times as well?
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her, none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then (mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same concerns?
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think you miss the point - or at any rate, you miss the point I am making. >>
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a
trans woman?
In the majority of circumstances, none. But there are some where the objection is legitimate, even if you or I would not necessarily share it.
Sharing a changing room or toilet facilities seems to be a scenario that
bothers many people.
To some extent, this may be considered an unreasonable objection. However, this has to be seen in the context that the overwhelming majority of sexual offences - and, in particular sexual assaults - are committed by men. Or, rather, people with penises. Even if the quantifiable risk is low,
therefore, many women (or, rather, people without penises) feel
uncomfortable being in a position of potential vulnerability when there is a person with a penis present. Toilets are probably less of an issue, given that any exposure generally takes place within the confines of a cubicle.
But many people without pensises feel very uncomfortable getting changed - even if it doesn't require full nudity - in the presence of a person with a penis.
To some extent, this reflects the asymmetry of legislation around voyeurism and indecent exposure. Voyeurism, while technically capable of being committed by anyone, is in reality overwhelmingly committed by men ogling women. And, equally, while indecent exposure can technically be committed by anyone, the vast majority of cases are men exposing themselves to women.
Now, this may be seen as unreasonable. If I walk around in the high street wearing clothing which, from certain angles, exposes my cock, then I'm the one who is likely to get in trouble for doing so, not the person who takes advantage of that angle and looks at it. But if a woman walks around in the high street wearing clothing which, from certain angles, exposes even her underwear, then, again, I'm the one who will get in trouble if I take advantage of that angle and look at it. We've had discussions in this very newsgroup about the inequality of the upskirting law, for example. Nonetheless, the law is asymmetric in that respect, and there are plenty of people who will be entirely happy to explain why it is and, indeed, why it should be.
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up with
medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you uncomfortable. Is
that reasonable? I can't see why. Being physically touched by a trans
woman should not upset any reasonable person. Being in a consulting room
and discussing one's symptoms with a trans woman should be even less of
a problem for any nervous person and would be the equivalent of sitting
in a lawyer's office and discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Again, this goes back to perception. There is a general principle in healthcare that, as far as possible, the patient should be put at their ease and feel comfortable in a clinical environment (insofar as you can feel comfortable when you're being prodded and poked and having needles stuck in you). And one aspect of that is that if a patient feels more comfortable being seen by someone of their own sex, then, unless it's impractical in those particular circumstances, they should be allowed to be seen by someone of their own sex. Even if the consultation doesn't include any exposure of private parts by either the medic or the patient.
Although this choice is available to all patients, in reality it tends to be exercised more by women. Men may feel more comfortable discussing some things, for example impotence and other sexual issues, with a male doctor than a female doctor, but other than that they don't really care much about having a female doctor poke and prod them. Women, on the other hand, are
more likely to request a female doctor even for non-sexual matters, particularly if it involves parts of their body that are normally considered private. You can argue that this asymmetry is unreasonable, but it happens.
A comparison with lawyers doesn't really work here. Unlesss I'm unlucky enough to be banged up in a cell at the local police station waiting for the duty brief to arrive, I generally have a choice of which law firm to use.
But I only have limited choice as to which GP surgery I'm registered with, and practically no choice as to where I go if I end up needing hospital treatment. So any choice has to be exercised at point of delivery ratherwhere
than selection.
What it boils down to, really, is that there are already many cases
the law (and common practice) recognises that women tend to make different choices to men, and that they should be allowed to make those different choices even if, to a man, the choice may seem irrational.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:09:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >>>> trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be
admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But
actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to
unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But
nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the
nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the
bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans
people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
You seriously need to broaden your reading or perhaps increase your
circle of female friends who are prepared to be open wuth you about
their fears and feelings.
For example: https://www.sundaystandard.info/women-live-in-constant-fear-of-men/
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to
the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their partners or
family members or disgruntled ex-partners.
Not just those groups:
https://www.wgn.org.uk/get-informed/myth-busting/
"FACT: The reality is that women and girls are more likely to be raped
by someone they know. This could be a boyfriend, husband, friend, work colleague, classmate, acquaintance or a member of their family. 97% of
women who contacted Rape Crisis said they knew the person who raped
them. 43% of girls questioned in a national survey said the person responsible for an unwanted sexual experience was a boy they knew or
were friends with."
You can keep citing the tiny
number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
You must be confusing me with someone else - I said absolutely nothing
about the number of rapists among trans people. My point was about
women's fear of men in general. Could it be that your preoccupation
with the rights of transpeople are preventing you from seeing the
forest?
I note that you snipped without comment the second half of my post on
the aspect of intimate examination. Can I take that to mean that you
accept the validity of my points?
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are >>>> scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception
Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
On 15/02/2025 14:23, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
I think you miss the point - or at any rate, you miss the point I am making.
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >>> trans woman?
In the majority of circumstances, none. But there are some where the
objection is legitimate, even if you or I would not necessarily share it.
You haven't attempted to answer my question, though.
Maybe the word "legitimate" is the wrong word. It is probably always
going to be a matter of opinion. I'd be interested to know what you
yourself would regard as reasonable objections to having dealings with a >trans woman. I don't want to make any accusations of bigotry.
To some extent, this may be considered an unreasonable objection. However, >> this has to be seen in the context that the overwhelming majority of sexual >> offences - and, in particular sexual assaults - are committed by men. Or,
rather, people with penises. Even if the quantifiable risk is low,
therefore, many women (or, rather, people without penises) feel
uncomfortable being in a position of potential vulnerability when there is a >> person with a penis present. Toilets are probably less of an issue, given
that any exposure generally takes place within the confines of a cubicle.
But many people without pensises feel very uncomfortable getting changed - >> even if it doesn't require full nudity - in the presence of a person with a >> penis.
Do you mean whether or not the penis is on display, in plain view?
To some extent, this reflects the asymmetry of legislation around voyeurism >> and indecent exposure. Voyeurism, while technically capable of being
committed by anyone, is in reality overwhelmingly committed by men ogling
women. And, equally, while indecent exposure can technically be committed by >> anyone, the vast majority of cases are men exposing themselves to women.
No longer termed "indecent" exposure but yes. Where perhaps we disagree
is where there is merely the possibility that a person with a penis
might expose it to view, but it hasn't actually happened. Or where the >exposure is objectively necessary and clearly not with the intention of >causing alarm or distress.
Although this choice is available to all patients, in reality it tends to be >> exercised more by women. Men may feel more comfortable discussing some
things, for example impotence and other sexual issues, with a male doctor
than a female doctor, but other than that they don't really care much about >> having a female doctor poke and prod them. Women, on the other hand, are
more likely to request a female doctor even for non-sexual matters,
particularly if it involves parts of their body that are normally considered >> private. You can argue that this asymmetry is unreasonable, but it happens.
I think this risks being seen by the reader as stating the blooming
obvious. Nobody can reasonably say that it is "unreasonable" to ask to
be seen by a clinician of one sex or the other.
A comparison with lawyers doesn't really work here. Unlesss I'm unlucky
enough to be banged up in a cell at the local police station waiting for the >> duty brief to arrive, I generally have a choice of which law firm to use.
Maybe you haven't used law firms very much. The normal process is, you
select your lawyer and/or law firm from the internet or from personal >recommendation, and maybe you meet him/her for a consultation, and then >he/she allocates the work to a lesser grade of fee earner who will
charge you less than the person you first saw, and may also be more >proficient in that area of law. And then it might be a woman, and you
might feel irritated that a woman doesn't have the killer instinct that
you hoped to see. Or it might be a black person. Or it might possibly be
a gay person or a trans person. Obviously trans people are rare in any
area of work, but are likely to grow in number over the years. So then
you have to make a decision - do you object to having the lawyer who has
been assigned to you or do you put up with it?
Always subject to our Equality laws. So you can't make a "different
choice" that rejects a person on race or disability or sexual
orientation grounds. It is up for debate whether you can reject a person
who presents as female but whom you suspect might very well have a
penis. Do we agree so far?
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
bb
Mavis Batey, who worked with Dilly Knox.
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right
decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an >> ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same
concerns?
I don't think their response was irrational. They were understandably >confused, and discussions among themselves had evidently not put their
minds at rest.
Perhaps JK Rowling's input would have been useful, ie: (a) It is an
abuse of young people to carry out life-altering surgery when they might
be unable to make a mature and rational choice about changing gender,
and (b) any man who changes gender from male to female ought to have his >penis amputated if he wants to use the female lavatories.
The two statements plainly contradicting each other. And I paraphrase
the arguments of course.
Your women might also, perhaps, have been worried about any colleagues
who claim to be lesbian yet admit to having sex with men occasionally.
It might seem somehow dishonest or unreasonable.
A lot of unnecessary grief is caused by people over-sharing. Nobody
ought to be required to say what genitals they have, or whether they
prefer men or women as sexual partners. If people over-share they must
expect that some listeners will react badly.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
On 2025-02-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
You're not even trying. Even if we were to accept your false premise
that if there were no women at Bletchley then that says something
about computing employees in the wider world, and your false premise
that "plugging wires" doesn't count as computing, there's an entire
Wikipedia article solely about the *7,500 women* who were at Bletchley,
which specifically names several who explicitly worked in cryptography
(in huts, if that somehow makes a difference).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Bletchley_Park
On 15/02/2025 18:00, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
bb
Mavis Batey, who worked with Dilly Knox.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of >>women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are >>that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most
transwomen are fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've
encountered several, not just one. I'd be surprised if women found
it any harder.
I think that is fair. And what the transgender supporters don't seem to comprehend is that those women who object to trans women in their
spaces or treating them is not that they are transsexual. Indeed women
are possibly more tolerant of transsexuals existing than men are in
general. What they are objecting to is that they are men, born, grown
up and socialised as men.
On 15/02/2025 17:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:09:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >>>>> trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before >>>> them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be
admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But
actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to
unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But
nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the
nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the >>> bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans
people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
You seriously need to broaden your reading or perhaps increase your
circle of female friends who are prepared to be open wuth you about
their fears and feelings.
No, I don't need to broaden my reading, nor do I need to read a lengthy copyright-busting quote from The Sunday Standard which states the obvious.
For example:
https://www.sundaystandard.info/women-live-in-constant-fear-of-men/
Describes the genuine fears of women walking home at night or being
molested by men in various social situations but has nothing to say
about trans women.
I suppose you conflate fear of predatory men with fear of trans women. Perhaps you might see trans women as wolves in sheeps clothing,
predatory men in disguise.
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her, none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then (mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same concerns?
Mark
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are >>> that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are >> fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just >> one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an >> anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some
details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a
multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll >> call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to
present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her, >> none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that
there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of >> her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't >> do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender
identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then >> (mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to
correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what >> I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the >> women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on >> her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she >> was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the >> building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far
from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male >> body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the >> men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk >> wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about >> was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the
ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the
conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was >> a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had
complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only >> their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was >> because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to >> be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a
while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one >> of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right
decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an >> ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same
concerns?
I don't think their response was irrational. They were understandably confused, and discussions among themselves had evidently not put their
minds at rest.
Perhaps JK Rowling's input would have been useful, ie: (a) It is an
abuse of young people to carry out life-altering surgery when they might
be unable to make a mature and rational choice about changing gender,
and (b) any man who changes gender from male to female ought to have his penis amputated if he wants to use the female lavatories.
The two statements plainly contradicting each other. And I paraphrase
the arguments of course.
Your women might also, perhaps, have been worried about any colleagues
who claim to be lesbian yet admit to having sex with men occasionally.
It might seem somehow dishonest or unreasonable.
A lot of unnecessary grief is caused by people over-sharing. Nobody
ought to be required to say what genitals they have, or whether they
prefer men or women as sexual partners. If people over-share they must
expect that some listeners will react badly.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvr1q37.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
You're not even trying. Even if we were to accept your false premise
that if there were no women at Bletchley then that says something
about computing employees in the wider world, and your false premise
that "plugging wires" doesn't count as computing, there's an entire
Wikipedia article solely about the *7,500 women* who were at Bletchley,
which specifically names several who explicitly worked in cryptography
(in huts, if that somehow makes a difference).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Bletchley_Park
quote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level work
such as cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in other
important areas, including as operators of cryptographic and
communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding
punched cards or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating
keyboards in commercial installations; as that sort of activity was
largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one single female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously heard of.
On 15 Feb 2025 at 15:37:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right
decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an >> ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same
concerns?
And, to help the debate, what would you have said if your staff had to change >in a communal changing room before work and after?
On 2025-02-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
You're not even trying. Even if we were to accept your false premise
that if there were no women at Bletchley then that says something
about computing employees in the wider world, and your false premise
that "plugging wires" doesn't count as computing, there's an entire
Wikipedia article solely about the *7,500 women* who were at Bletchley,
which specifically names several who explicitly worked in cryptography
(in huts, if that somehow makes a difference).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Bletchley_Park
"Les. Hayward" <les@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:voqm3r$9lrs$1@solani.org...
On 15/02/2025 18:00, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
bb
Mavis Batey, who worked with Dilly Knox.
Very good
Now its Jon Ribbens' turn to name another one.
bb
The crime statistics show that though trans women may be no more likely to attack women than other men, they are actually not any *less* likely to attack
women than other men.
On 15 Feb 2025 19:34:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 15:37:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think >>> that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right
decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an >>> ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same
concerns?
And, to help the debate, what would you have said if your staff had to change
in a communal changing room before work and after?
I think, at that point, my answer would have been the same. That is, the
time to raise any concerns is at the beginning, and given that no concerns were raised until later, and the person being complained about has not changed their actions in any way, suggests that the issue is not with the person being complained about.
But I also think that, had the staff been using a communal changing room at the start of their shifts, we may have had those issues raised earlier. It may even have been raised by HR during the interview process. Bearing in
mind that this was pre-GRA and pre-Equality Act. We had absolutely no legal obligation to treat a trans person as their acquired gender. We did so because we felt it was the right thing to do - as I've said elsewhere, an office job is one of the circumstances where a person's sex and gender are pretty much irrelevant. And toilets, particularly office toilets shared only with colleagues (I accept that it may be slightly different in public
toilets where you are sharing them with strangers), are not really a major perception of risk. But if it hadn't been a purely office job - if it had required the use of staff changing rooms - then the circumstances might have been different.
Mark
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:24:47 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
My initial thoughts are that if medical services are provided free of
charge at source then we, as patients, should not be specifying the
gender of who we receive treatment from.
At the moment, we already do have that choice (unless the circumstances make it impractical), and there are very good reasons for allowing us that
choice. It isn't necessary to have a religious belief in order to exercise that choice, although sincerely held religious beliefs do affect how and
when that choice is exercised.
The issue here is not whether patients can choose the gender of the person seeing them, because that choice already exists and there are no plans to change that. The issue here is whether that choice:
a) means an absolute right to be seen by someone of a particular biological
sex, irrespective of their gender identity or possession of a GRC;
b) means a right to be seen by someone of a particular legal sex, whether
documented on a birth certificate or GRC, but not a right to be seen
by someone of a particular biological sex where that is different to
their legal sex; or
c) means only a right to be seen by someone of a particular gender
identity, irrespective of that person's legal or biological sex.
At the moment, I think the courts would probably decide that (b) is the
right answer, as that's pretty much what the GRA says. But there are people who would argue for (a), and others who would argue for (c).
Purely as a matter of interest, did you know that you could change the gender marked on your passport or drivin licence with just a letter from your doctor to say that your change is likely to be permanent, and evidence that you've changed your name for administrative purposes if you also want to change your name? I didn't realise it was that easy. You don't need a GRC.
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 13/02/2025 22:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:8316230685.58d3466c@uninhabited.net...
On 13 Feb 2025 at 21:37:29 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1625lFno8aU1@mid.individual.net...
I wonder if there is something unique about medical staff or whether >>>>>> the same arguments might arise if you were asking a lawyer to represent >>>>>> you, either to give advice or to represent you in court,
" Good afternoon. I've come to ask your advice about a dispute with a >>>>> neighbour "
" Oh yes madam I think we should be able to help you with that. If you would
just go behind the screen please, and take off all your clothes. "
bb
Since the important issue is apparently what they "identify as", not their >>>> anatomy, perhaps that will be unhelpful?
But before advising the client as to how to best to proceed, its surely
incumbent on any lawyer to fully acquaint themselves with any facts,
as may subsequently emerge in Court ?
Rather than being caught with their trousers down, as it were.
I think you miss the point - or at any rate, you miss the point I am making. >>
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before
them.
Sharing a changing room or toilet facilities seems to be a scenario that
bothers many people.
But then we have the suggestion that you should not have to put up with
medical treatment from a trans woman if that makes you uncomfortable. Is
that reasonable?
No more unreasonable than any person preferring an intimate
examination to be carried out by a person of the same sex.
I can't see why. Being physically touched by a trans
woman should not upset any reasonable person. Being in a consulting room
and discussing one's symptoms with a trans woman should be even less of
a problem for any nervous person and would be the equivalent of sitting
in a lawyer's office and discussing one's legal case with a trans lawyer.
Perhaps not for you but intimate examination can be disturbing for
many people, no matter who carries it out. Intimate examinations are generally to check some underlying problem which may on its own
already be causing the patient to be nervous if not distressed.
Patient treatment should always have minimising distress as a priority
over the feelings of the doctor.
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >>> trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be admired for this
display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But actually we
hear very little from women, either here or in public discourse, and I think it
is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need to protect women from scary trans
females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya Forstater are
two of them. I know that both have been subjected to unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But nevertheless they cannot claim
to speak for the majority of women or even for a sizeable minority. They speak
for themselves, and in the nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue
that trans people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to the other
staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside
On 15/02/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >>>>> trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before >>>> them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be
admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But
actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to
unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But
nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the
nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the >>> bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans
people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to
the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their partners or >>> family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing the tiny
number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that it is usually
men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women.
I have said nothing to justify this rather extraordinary allegation from you.
It is my impression that you claim to speak, on the thinnest of evidence, for womankind. But deciding who speaks for the majority is actually pointless. The
nation cannot vote on whether trans women can use public toilets. It isn't a policy decision that rests on a democratic vote.
There are hardly any female contributors to this newsgroup and none of them can
claim to represent a majority of women. However, I base my views on discussions
I have had with many women in recent years, none of whom appear to have any worries about trans women in public toilets let alone being treated by a trans
female doctor, nurse, member of ambulance crew, dentist, etc.
I suppose to some of us it might seem strange that many women are content to be
examined by a male obstetrician or gynaecologist. Obviously if someone has strong religious beliefs or psychological problems that make it imperative to have a female doctor, it would be unreasonable and oppressive to insist that it
be a male doctor.
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of a trans woman
in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable basis for such an objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging the curiosity of a patient who says "you're dressed as female but I think you look a bit male. Are you in fact a trans woman? Can I see your certificate?"
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
On 15/02/2025 18:00, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its
inception Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With
just the odd token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
No, the women *were* the computers, with pencil, paper and log tables.
On 16/02/2025 01:22 PM, Max Demian wrote:
No, the women *were* the computers, with pencil, paper and log tables.
The (fairly) recent movie "Oppenheimer" made that point in passing,
with "Computers" being a bank of deskbound women engaged in
calculations (or "computations").
On 15/02/2025 14:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:24:47 +0000, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
My initial thoughts are that if medical services are provided free of
charge at source then we, as patients, should not be specifying the
gender of who we receive treatment from.
At the moment, we already do have that choice (unless the circumstances make >> it impractical), and there are very good reasons for allowing us that
choice. It isn't necessary to have a religious belief in order to exercise >> that choice, although sincerely held religious beliefs do affect how and
when that choice is exercised.
It was always said that male GPs were generally better qualified than
female GPs on the basis there was a shortage of qualified female doctors >where any female qualified doctor would be hired and therefore best to
see a male doctor. I am aware that that shortage has now near
disappeared and will soon be reversed.
At the moment, I think the courts would probably decide that (b) is the
right answer, as that's pretty much what the GRA says. But there are people >> who would argue for (a), and others who would argue for (c).
b) Assuming you mean biological sex to refer to physical
characteristics. I can then see how a judge must find against b) in
extreme cases. For example a bald medical practitioner with an evident >lunchbox sporting a female GRC.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message >news:4754948093.b70cbead@uninhabited.net...
The crime statistics show that though trans women may be no more likely to >> attack women than other men, they are actually not any *less* likely to attack
women than other men.
Eh ?
quote:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
If its assumed all these sex offences are against women, then among the >prison population - people who have actually been convicted of any offence >transwomen are 3 and a half times as likely to have attacked women
as have men.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:42:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4754948093.b70cbead@uninhabited.net...
The crime statistics show that though trans women may be no more likely to >>> attack women than other men, they are actually not any *less* likely to attack
women than other men.
Eh ?
quote:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
If its assumed all these sex offences are against women, then among the
prison population - people who have actually been convicted of any offence >> transwomen are 3 and a half times as likely to have attacked women
as have men.
I'm not entirely sure that's as meaningful as you think. The real question
is whether someone who identifies as a transwoman is more likely to commit
an offence after they have identified as trans - that is, they identify as trans at the time of the offence.
I suspect that the seemingly high proportion of transwomen offenders in prison is more likely to be caused by people who identify as trans after being convicted (or charged), because they perceive it as being a way to mitigate their sentence. A men's prison is not a good place to be for a sex offender; as soon as word gets around that you're a nonce then you'll always be looking over your shoulder. Getting transferred to a women's prison is likely to represent a safer option. And, on the other hand, being a rare example of a penis in a prison full of sex-starved women is likely to
present opportunities. It is far better to give than to receive.
Mark
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvr1q37.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the
centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its
been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
You're not even trying. Even if we were to accept your false premise
that if there were no women at Bletchley then that says something
about computing employees in the wider world, and your false premise
that "plugging wires" doesn't count as computing, there's an entire
Wikipedia article solely about the *7,500 women* who were at Bletchley,
which specifically names several who explicitly worked in cryptography
(in huts, if that somehow makes a difference).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Bletchley_Park
quote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level work such as
cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in other important areas, including as operators of cryptographic and communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding punched cards
or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating keyboards in commercial installations; as that sort of activity was largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one single female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously heard of.
Dominated by women - doing all the donkey work.
As per usual.
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my previously preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to arrange it
so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or she has certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising member of that religion).
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:42:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message >>news:4754948093.b70cbead@uninhabited.net...
The crime statistics show that though trans women may be no more likely to >>> attack women than other men, they are actually not any *less* likely to attack
women than other men.
Eh ?
quote:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
If its assumed all these sex offences are against women, then among the >>prison population - people who have actually been convicted of any offence >>transwomen are 3 and a half times as likely to have attacked women
as have men.
I'm not entirely sure that's as meaningful as you think. The real question
is whether someone who identifies as a transwoman is more likely to commit
an offence after they have identified as trans - that is, they identify as trans at the time of the offence.
I suspect that the seemingly high proportion of transwomen offenders in prison is more likely to be caused by people who identify as trans after being convicted (or charged), because they perceive it as being a way to mitigate their sentence. A men's prison is not a good place to be for a sex offender; as soon as word gets around that you're a nonce then you'll always be looking over your shoulder. Getting transferred to a women's prison is likely to represent a safer option. And, on the other hand, being a rare example of a penis in a prison full of sex-starved women is likely to
present opportunities. It is far better to give than to receive.
On 15/02/2025 13:58, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings
with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable >>>>> to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by >>>>> casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot >>>>> more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before >>>>> them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk >>>> are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as >>>> men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be >>>> admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But
actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need >>>> to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to
unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But >>>> nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the
nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on
the
bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans
people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to >>>> the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their
partners or
family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing the tiny >>>> number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that it is
usually
men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women.
I have said nothing to justify this rather extraordinary allegation
from you.
It is my impression that you claim to speak, on the thinnest of
evidence, for womankind. But deciding who speaks for the majority is
actually pointless. The nation cannot vote on whether trans women can
use public toilets. It isn't a policy decision that rests on a
democratic vote.
Why not?
There are hardly any female contributors to this newsgroup and none of
them can claim to represent a majority of women. However, I base my
views on discussions I have had with many women in recent years, none
of whom appear to have any worries about trans women in public toilets
let alone being treated by a trans female doctor, nurse, member of
ambulance crew, dentist, etc.
Maybe they just don't tell you what they really think? maybe you only
hear "I don't mind" and not "but I know some do".
I suppose to some of us it might seem strange that many women are
content to be examined by a male obstetrician or gynaecologist.
Obviously if someone has strong religious beliefs or psychological
problems that make it imperative to have a female doctor, it would be
unreasonable and oppressive to insist that it be a male doctor.
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of a
trans woman in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable basis for
such an objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging the curiosity
of a patient who says "you're dressed as female but I think you look a
bit male. Are you in fact a trans woman? Can I see your certificate?"
He hasn't got one.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 18:11:06 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/02/2025 17:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 12:09:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a >>>>>> trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable >>>>> to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of
whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by >>>>> casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot >>>>> more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before >>>>> them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk >>>> are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as >>>> men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be >>>> admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But
actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need >>>> to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to
unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But >>>> nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the
nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the >>>> bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans
people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
You seriously need to broaden your reading or perhaps increase your
circle of female friends who are prepared to be open wuth you about
their fears and feelings.
No, I don't need to broaden my reading, nor do I need to read a lengthy
copyright-busting quote from The Sunday Standard which states the obvious.
Dismissing a relevant extract from a properly cited article as being copyright-busting comes across as a tad overwrought.
There are plenty of other articles around saying much the same thing;
I'll just give you a couple of links this time and not quote from them
in case it disturbs your copyright sensitivities:
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/all-women-live-in-fear-and-men-just-dont-get-it/news-story/36f90cbbce4dc8cb8a9795e4a390cb1e
https://www.buzzfeed.com/victoriavouloumanos/things-men-do-that-unintentionally-scare-women
I suppose you conflate fear of predatory men with fear of trans women.
Perhaps you might see trans women as wolves in sheeps clothing,
predatory men in disguise.
You think it would be unreasonable for a woman to see a penis on
display and think it might be attached to a man?
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to >>>> the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their partners or >>>> family members or disgruntled ex-partners.
Why, then, did you reduce your list to "partners or family members or disgruntled ex-partners", excluding other categories such as *work colleagues* which is particularly relevant to this discussion.
You must be confusing me with someone else - I said absolutely nothing
about the number of rapists among trans people. My point was about
women's fear of men in general. Could it be that your preoccupation
with the rights of transpeople are preventing you from seeing the
forest?
No. Could it be that your preoccupation with the "rights" of women
actually infantalises them and that you see all the women in your life
as weak and in need of your heroic protection?
No more than the women authors I have quoted above - or do you think
that *they* are infantalising other women?
I think your point was that "intimate examination can be disturbing for
many people, no matter who carries it out....Patient treatment should
always have minimising distress as a priority over the feelings of the
doctor".
Logically, it might be said that a patient who says "I'm not going to be
touched by that doctor, she's a coon" should be indulged and respected.
I therefore don't think you have correctly stated what the rule ought to be.
It has already been pointed out to you by other posters that racial discrimination is illegal whereas people have a recognised right to
request that intimate examination be carried out by a person of the
same sex. That's at least 3 strawmen you have brought into this
discussion:
* that I was "copyright busting"
* rape statistics for transwomen when I have made no reference at all
to rape by transwomen
* racial comparisons.
That creates an impression that you find it difficult to contradict
the actual arguments I put forward.
On 16 Feb 2025 at 21:56:57 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:42:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4754948093.b70cbead@uninhabited.net...
The crime statistics show that though trans women may be no more likely to >>>> attack women than other men, they are actually not any *less* likely to attack
women than other men.
Eh ?
quote:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
If its assumed all these sex offences are against women, then among the >>> prison population - people who have actually been convicted of any offence >>> transwomen are 3 and a half times as likely to have attacked women
as have men.
I'm not entirely sure that's as meaningful as you think. The real question >> is whether someone who identifies as a transwoman is more likely to commit >> an offence after they have identified as trans - that is, they identify as >> trans at the time of the offence.
I suspect that the seemingly high proportion of transwomen offenders in
prison is more likely to be caused by people who identify as trans after
being convicted (or charged), because they perceive it as being a way to
mitigate their sentence. A men's prison is not a good place to be for a sex >> offender; as soon as word gets around that you're a nonce then you'll always >> be looking over your shoulder. Getting transferred to a women's prison is
likely to represent a safer option. And, on the other hand, being a rare
example of a penis in a prison full of sex-starved women is likely to
present opportunities. It is far better to give than to receive.
Mark
"It is far better to give than to receive."
I can see that a man is likely to feel that. But it does say something about the sincerity of their femaleness.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to be mistaken.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think that my decision was the right one?
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:75n4rjdk480i7u04duulifikq1pdd767u6@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 20:42:55 -0000, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4754948093.b70cbead@uninhabited.net...
The crime statistics show that though trans women may be no more likely to >>>> attack women than other men, they are actually not any *less* likely to attack
women than other men.
Eh ?
quote:
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019
(most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
unquote
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
If its assumed all these sex offences are against women, then among the >>> prison population - people who have actually been convicted of any offence >>> transwomen are 3 and a half times as likely to have attacked women
as have men.
I'm not entirely sure that's as meaningful as you think. The real question >> is whether someone who identifies as a transwoman is more likely to commit >> an offence after they have identified as trans - that is, they identify as >> trans at the time of the offence.
I suspect that the seemingly high proportion of transwomen offenders in
prison is more likely to be caused by people who identify as trans after
being convicted (or charged), because they perceive it as being a way to
mitigate their sentence. A men's prison is not a good place to be for a sex >> offender; as soon as word gets around that you're a nonce then you'll always >> be looking over your shoulder. Getting transferred to a women's prison is
likely to represent a safer option. And, on the other hand, being a rare
example of a penis in a prison full of sex-starved women is likely to
present opportunities. It is far better to give than to receive.
Err....
But isn't that *exact;y* what many critics have been claiming all along ?
That many transwomen aren't *genuine transwomen* at all, but "men
pretending to be transwomen* so at to able to better prey on women ?
And not only that.
Whatever threat genuine transwomen may represent to women, *men
pretending to be transwomen* represent an even greater threat if
unlike genuine transwomen one of their primary motives is to have
better access to women's facilities.
And this will apply at *whatever stage they decide to make the change.
They will, forever after, pose an even greater threat.
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk >> wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about >> was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the
ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the
conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was >> a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had
complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only >> their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was >> because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to >> be mistaken.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one?
Your decision seems to contravene the HSW Regulations - or Factory Act if earlier (assuming your option b) 'legal sex' applies to those).
On 16/02/2025 21:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my previously
preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to arrange it >> so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or she has
certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular
ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising member of >> that religion).
I would only question how you can tell that from the doctor's name.
I don't think any of the doctors at my local surgery have names that
suggest any religious leanings or affiliations.
On 16 Feb 2025 at 21:56:57 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect that the seemingly high proportion of transwomen offenders in
prison is more likely to be caused by people who identify as trans after
being convicted (or charged), because they perceive it as being a way to
mitigate their sentence. A men's prison is not a good place to be for a sex >> offender; as soon as word gets around that you're a nonce then you'll always >> be looking over your shoulder. Getting transferred to a women's prison is
likely to represent a safer option. And, on the other hand, being a rare
example of a penis in a prison full of sex-starved women is likely to
present opportunities. It is far better to give than to receive.
"It is far better to give than to receive."
I can see that a man is likely to feel that. But it does say something about >the sincerity of their femaleness.
On 16/02/2025 14:08, Martin Harran wrote:
You think it would be unreasonable for a woman to see a penis on
display and think it might be attached to a man?
You think it is possible for a woman to have some sort of x-ray vision
and to see the penis under the clothing of a fully dressed trans woman?
You also think the penis is what women should fear, and that a person
whose penis has been amputated for any reason is equivalent to a woman,
very unlikely to commit any crime of violence, interested mainly in
knitting and crochet and baking cakes? Yes, that's what you think.
Margaret Hamilton has been in the news recently.
There is also the issue that men tend to be named and recognised for significant work even if the breakthrough was made by a woman in any scientific or technological area. That tends to bias the “previously heard of” towards men.
Note also that the women people have heard of are not token women named
just to show that women were involved. They are the few whose ground
breaking work makes them difficult to ignore and whose work cannot be attributed to a male colleague.
On 17 Feb 2025 00:19:11 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Feb 2025 at 21:56:57 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
I suspect that the seemingly high proportion of transwomen offenders in
prison is more likely to be caused by people who identify as trans after >>> being convicted (or charged), because they perceive it as being a way to >>> mitigate their sentence. A men's prison is not a good place to be for a sex >>> offender; as soon as word gets around that you're a nonce then you'll always
be looking over your shoulder. Getting transferred to a women's prison is >>> likely to represent a safer option. And, on the other hand, being a rare >>> example of a penis in a prison full of sex-starved women is likely to
present opportunities. It is far better to give than to receive.
"It is far better to give than to receive."
I can see that a man is likely to feel that. But it does say something about >> the sincerity of their femaleness.
That's kind of my point, really. But specifically in relation to people who identify as trans *after* having been charged or convicted of a sexual offence. I don't think it necessarily tells us anything meaningful about whether someone who has transitioned out of a genuine sense of gender dysphoria is more likely to commit a sexual offence.
Mark
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level work such as
cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in other important areas, >> including as operators of cryptographic and communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding punched cards
or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating keyboards in commercial
installations; as that sort of activity was largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one single
female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously heard of.
Dominated by women - doing all the donkey work.
As per usual.
Margaret Hamilton has been in the news recently.
There is also the issue that men tend to be named and recognised for significant work even if the breakthrough was made by a woman in any scientific or technological area. That tends to bias the “previously heard of” towards men.
Note also that the women people have heard of are not token women named
just to show that women were involved. They are the few whose ground
breaking work makes them difficult to ignore and whose work cannot be attributed to a male colleague.
On 17/02/2025 10:10 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2025 14:08, Martin Harran wrote:
[ ...]
You think it would be unreasonable for a woman to see a penis on
display and think it might be attached to a man?
You think it is possible for a woman to have some sort of x-ray vision
and to see the penis under the clothing of a fully dressed trans woman?
You also think the penis is what women should fear, and that a person
whose penis has been amputated for any reason is equivalent to a woman,
very unlikely to commit any crime of violence, interested mainly in
knitting and crochet and baking cakes? Yes, that's what you think.
If the amputation included the testicles, that might be a reasonable assumption.
It's one of the reasons why so many people have their pet tom cats neutered.
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk >> wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about >> was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the
ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the
conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was >> a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had
complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only >> their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was >> because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to >> be mistaken.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one?
Your decision seems to contravene the HSW Regulations - or Factory Act if
earlier (assuming your option b) 'legal sex' applies to those).
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her, none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then (mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same concerns?
Mark
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr1q37.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>>>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the >>>>>>> centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its >>>>>>> been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
You're not even trying. Even if we were to accept your false premise
that if there were no women at Bletchley then that says something
about computing employees in the wider world, and your false premise
that "plugging wires" doesn't count as computing, there's an entire
Wikipedia article solely about the *7,500 women* who were at Bletchley,
which specifically names several who explicitly worked in cryptography
(in huts, if that somehow makes a difference).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Bletchley_Park
quote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level work such as
cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in other important areas, >> including as operators of cryptographic and communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding punched cards
or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating keyboards in commercial
installations; as that sort of activity was largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one single
female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously heard of.
Dominated by women - doing all the donkey work.
As per usual.
Margaret Hamilton has been in the news recently.
There is also the issue that men tend to be named and recognised for significant work even if the breakthrough was made by a woman in any scientific or technological area. That tends to bias the “previously heard of” towards men.
Note also that the women people have heard of are not token women named
just to show that women were involved. They are the few whose ground
breaking work makes them difficult to ignore and whose work cannot be attributed to a male colleague.
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are >>> that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are >> fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just >> one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an >> anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some
details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a
multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll >> call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to
present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her, >> none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that
there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of >> her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't >> do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender
identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then >> (mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to
correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what >> I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the >> women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on >> her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she >> was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the >> building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far
from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male >> body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the >> men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk >> wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about >> was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the
ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the
conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was >> a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had
complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only >> their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was >> because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to >> be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a
while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one >> of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right
decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an >> ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same
concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"?
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
On 16/02/2025 12:43, kat wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:58, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable >>>>>> to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of >>>>>> whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by >>>>>> casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot >>>>>> more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before >>>>>> them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk >>>>> are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as >>>>> men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be >>>>> admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But
actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need >>>>> to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to
unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But >>>>> nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or >>>>> even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the
nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the >>>>> bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans
people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded
beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to >>>>> the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside >>>>>
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their partners or >>>>> family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing the tiny >>>>> number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that it is usually
men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women.
I have said nothing to justify this rather extraordinary allegation from you.
It is my impression that you claim to speak, on the thinnest of evidence, for
womankind. But deciding who speaks for the majority is actually pointless. >>> The nation cannot vote on whether trans women can use public toilets. It >>> isn't a policy decision that rests on a democratic vote.
Why not?
There are hardly any female contributors to this newsgroup and none of them >>> can claim to represent a majority of women. However, I base my views on
discussions I have had with many women in recent years, none of whom appear >>> to have any worries about trans women in public toilets let alone being
treated by a trans female doctor, nurse, member of ambulance crew, dentist, etc.
Maybe they just don't tell you what they really think? maybe you only hear "I
don't mind" and not "but I know some do".
Maybe anything. Maybe they shudder at having to accept treatment, even in an emergency, from someone with conspicuous tattoos or an androgynous appearance.
Maybe they would feel uncomfortable if they walked past a trans woman customer
in Tesco.
I think in reality it doesn't cross anyone's mind at all. Unless they have read
something in the Daily Mail which has made them feel indignant.
I suppose to some of us it might seem strange that many women are content to
be examined by a male obstetrician or gynaecologist. Obviously if someone has
strong religious beliefs or psychological problems that make it imperative to
have a female doctor, it would be unreasonable and oppressive to insist that
it be a male doctor.
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of a trans >>> woman in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable basis for such an >>> objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging the curiosity of a patient >>> who says "you're dressed as female but I think you look a bit male. Are you >>> in fact a trans woman? Can I see your certificate?"
He hasn't got one.
And if he had one, do you think he needs to carry it with him at all times? Just
in case?
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:48:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/02/2025 21:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my previously >>> preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to arrange it >>> so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or she has >>> certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular
ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising member of >>> that religion).
I would only question how you can tell that from the doctor's name.
I don't think any of the doctors at my local surgery have names that
suggest any religious leanings or affiliations.
There are some names which are statistically more likely to be held by
people with certain religious affiliations. A given name of Mohammed, or a surname of Singh, for example. It's not absolutely reliable, of course, but it does give a clue.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of >>>> women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are >>>> that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime, >>>> but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are
fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just >>> one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an >>> anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some
details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a
multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll >>> call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually >>> had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to >>> present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her, >>> none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that >>> there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of >>> her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't >>> do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender >>> identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then >>> (mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to
correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what
I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the >>> women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on
her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she >>> was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the
building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far >>> from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male >>> body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the
men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk >>> wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about >>> was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the
ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the >>> conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had
complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only >>> their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was >>> because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a >>> while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one
of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think >>> that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right
decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an >>> ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same
concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"? >>
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the
slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course >> their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she >> must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, >> told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women objected.
On 17/02/2025 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2025 12:43, kat wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:58, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having
dealings with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems
reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of >>>>>>> whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by >>>>>>> casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot >>>>>>> more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed
before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their
womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That
they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and
should be
admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But >>>>>> actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public
discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we"
need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya
Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to >>>>>> unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their
views. But
nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or >>>>>> even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the >>>>>> nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing
on the
bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans >>>>>> people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded >>>>>> beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor,
known to
the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside >>>>>>
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their
partners or
family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing the >>>>>> tiny
number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that it
is usually
men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women.
I have said nothing to justify this rather extraordinary allegation
from you.
It is my impression that you claim to speak, on the thinnest of
evidence, for womankind. But deciding who speaks for the majority is
actually pointless. The nation cannot vote on whether trans women
can use public toilets. It isn't a policy decision that rests on a
democratic vote.
Why not?
There are hardly any female contributors to this newsgroup and none
of them can claim to represent a majority of women. However, I base
my views on discussions I have had with many women in recent years,
none of whom appear to have any worries about trans women in public
toilets let alone being treated by a trans female doctor, nurse,
member of ambulance crew, dentist, etc.
Maybe they just don't tell you what they really think? maybe you only
hear "I don't mind" and not "but I know some do".
Maybe anything. Maybe they shudder at having to accept treatment, even
in an emergency, from someone with conspicuous tattoos or an
androgynous appearance. Maybe they would feel uncomfortable if they
walked past a trans woman customer in Tesco.
I think in reality it doesn't cross anyone's mind at all. Unless they
have read something in the Daily Mail which has made them feel indignant.
I don't need to go anywhere near the Daily Mail to read stuff that makes
me indignant.
Sometimes no further than here. Do you really want contributions from females here?
I suppose to some of us it might seem strange that many women are
content to be examined by a male obstetrician or gynaecologist.
Obviously if someone has strong religious beliefs or psychological
problems that make it imperative to have a female doctor, it would
be unreasonable and oppressive to insist that it be a male doctor.
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of a
trans woman in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable basis
for such an objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging the
curiosity of a patient who says "you're dressed as female but I
think you look a bit male. Are you in fact a trans woman? Can I see
your certificate?"
He hasn't got one.
And if he had one, do you think he needs to carry it with him at all
times? Just in case?
If he had one we would all know anyway.
If he had one the nmanager who preferred just to suspend the nurse only
had to tell the nurse that it existed.
On 17/02/2025 10:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:48:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 16/02/2025 21:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my
previously
preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to
arrange it
so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or she
has
certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular
ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising
member of
that religion).
I would only question how you can tell that from the doctor's name.
I don't think any of the doctors at my local surgery have names that
suggest any religious leanings or affiliations.
There are some names which are statistically more likely to be held by
people with certain religious affiliations. A given name of Mohammed,
or a
surname of Singh, for example. It's not absolutely reliable, of
course, but
it does give a clue.
I don't think it gives a very reliable clue. I don't think people change their name when they decide to be atheists.
A given name of Mohamed might be associated with serious sexual assaults
on women. Merely because of one well known example.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 11:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 10:10 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2025 14:08, Martin Harran wrote:
[ ...]
You think it would be unreasonable for a woman to see a penis on
display and think it might be attached to a man?
You think it is possible for a woman to have some sort of x-ray vision
and to see the penis under the clothing of a fully dressed trans woman?
You also think the penis is what women should fear, and that a person
whose penis has been amputated for any reason is equivalent to a woman,
very unlikely to commit any crime of violence, interested mainly in
knitting and crochet and baking cakes? Yes, that's what you think.
If the amputation included the testicles, that might be a reasonable
assumption.
It's one of the reasons why so many people have their pet tom cats neutered.
I am really not sure about sexual dimorphism in cats. But neutered adult male humans remain nearly all much stronger than nearly all women. And the inability to rape does not render them less able to commit violent crimes, including sexual assaults.
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 10:24:28 GMT, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk
wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about >>>> was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the >>>> ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the >>>> conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had >>>> complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only
their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was
because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think >>>> that my decision was the right one?
Your decision seems to contravene the HSW Regulations - or Factory Act if >>> earlier (assuming your option b) 'legal sex' applies to those).
There is indeed some debate about what the pre-existing changing room
regulations mean in light of the EA and the GRA. The pending Supreme Court >> judgment may help, and the current tribunal re Fife is being asked questions >> bearing on this. But it is disputed.
For instance, is the holder of a female GRC a woman for all legal purposes >> (except inheriting a peerage which is specifically excluded)?
For a period of fifteen years or so, I used to take my son, a keen F1 fan,
to the highly popular British Grand Prix at Silverstone.
It was very noticeable that in the half-hour or so before lights out (the start of the race), there would be long queues for the men’s loos and rather longer ones for the ladies’.
For whatever reason, men tended to use the urinals, leaving the WCs free,
and the men’s queues consequently shortened faster than those of the ladies.
But some enterprising ladies spotted this, and avoided a long uncomfortable wait by using the men’s WCs that were vacant.
The idea caught on, leading to the interesting situation in which only
ladies queued for the ladies’ loos, but men and women (in separate lines) queued for the men’s loos. It was a situation that ‘just worked’, for both
sexes (and possibly some genders), and no-one seemed to get exercised over this ad-hoc arrangement.
I stopped going to Silverstone about twenty years ago, before genderism became an enforceable social imperative, so I have no idea what happens today.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 10:24:28 GMT, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk >>> wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about >>> was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the
ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the >>> conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had
complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only >>> their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was >>> because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think >>> that my decision was the right one?
Your decision seems to contravene the HSW Regulations - or Factory Act if
earlier (assuming your option b) 'legal sex' applies to those).
There is indeed some debate about what the pre-existing changing room regulations mean in light of the EA and the GRA. The pending Supreme Court judgment may help, and the current tribunal re Fife is being asked questions bearing on this. But it is disputed.
For instance, is the holder of a female GRC a woman for all legal purposes (except inheriting a peerage which is specifically excluded)?
On 17/02/2025 10:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:48:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
On 16/02/2025 21:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my previously >>>> preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to arrange it >>>> so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or she has >>>> certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular
ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising member of
that religion).
I would only question how you can tell that from the doctor's name.
I don't think any of the doctors at my local surgery have names that
suggest any religious leanings or affiliations.
There are some names which are statistically more likely to be held by
people with certain religious affiliations. A given name of Mohammed, or a >> surname of Singh, for example. It's not absolutely reliable, of course, but >> it does give a clue.
I don't think it gives a very reliable clue. I don't think people change their name when they decide to be atheists.
A given name of Mohamed might be associated with serious sexual assaults
on women. Merely because of one well known example.
On 17/02/2025 01:46 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 10:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:48:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 16/02/2025 21:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my
previously
preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to
arrange it
so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or she >>>>> has
certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular
ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising
member of
that religion).
I would only question how you can tell that from the doctor's name.
I don't think any of the doctors at my local surgery have names that
suggest any religious leanings or affiliations.
There are some names which are statistically more likely to be held by
people with certain religious affiliations. A given name of Mohammed,
or a
surname of Singh, for example. It's not absolutely reliable, of
course, but
it does give a clue.
I don't think it gives a very reliable clue. I don't think people change
their name when they decide to be atheists.
It's hardly unknown for Moslem converts to take a new name.
Whatever happened to Cat Stevens?
A given name of Mohamed might be associated with serious sexual assaults
on women. Merely because of one well known example.
On 17/02/2025 12:25 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 11:21:28 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 10:10 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2025 14:08, Martin Harran wrote:
[ ...]
You think it would be unreasonable for a woman to see a penis on
display and think it might be attached to a man?
You think it is possible for a woman to have some sort of x-ray vision >>>> and to see the penis under the clothing of a fully dressed trans woman? >>>>
You also think the penis is what women should fear, and that a person
whose penis has been amputated for any reason is equivalent to a woman, >>>> very unlikely to commit any crime of violence, interested mainly in
knitting and crochet and baking cakes? Yes, that's what you think.
If the amputation included the testicles, that might be a reasonable
assumption.
It's one of the reasons why so many people have their pet tom cats neutered.
I am really not sure about sexual dimorphism in cats. But neutered adult male
humans remain nearly all much stronger than nearly all women. And the
inability to rape does not render them less able to commit violent crimes, >> including sexual assaults.
So were the potentates of antiquity and later wasting their time and
money on having the males who where to administer harems eunuch-ised?
Let's not even mention the first hundred or two years of Italian opera.
On 17/02/2025 12:49, kat wrote:
On 17/02/2025 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2025 12:43, kat wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:58, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having
dealings with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems
reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of >>>>>>>> whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by >>>>>>>> casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot >>>>>>>> more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed >>>>>>>> before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their
womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That
they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and
should be
admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But >>>>>>> actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public >>>>>>> discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" >>>>>>> need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya >>>>>>> Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to >>>>>>> unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their
views. But
nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or >>>>>>> even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the >>>>>>> nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing >>>>>>> on the
bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans >>>>>>> people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded >>>>>>> beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor,
known to
the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside >>>>>>>
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their
partners or
family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing the >>>>>>> tiny
number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that it >>>>>> is usually
men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women.
I have said nothing to justify this rather extraordinary allegation
from you.
It is my impression that you claim to speak, on the thinnest of
evidence, for womankind. But deciding who speaks for the majority is >>>>> actually pointless. The nation cannot vote on whether trans women
can use public toilets. It isn't a policy decision that rests on a
democratic vote.
Why not?
There are hardly any female contributors to this newsgroup and none
of them can claim to represent a majority of women. However, I base
my views on discussions I have had with many women in recent years,
none of whom appear to have any worries about trans women in public
toilets let alone being treated by a trans female doctor, nurse,
member of ambulance crew, dentist, etc.
Maybe they just don't tell you what they really think? maybe you only
hear "I don't mind" and not "but I know some do".
Maybe anything. Maybe they shudder at having to accept treatment, even
in an emergency, from someone with conspicuous tattoos or an
androgynous appearance. Maybe they would feel uncomfortable if they
walked past a trans woman customer in Tesco.
I think in reality it doesn't cross anyone's mind at all. Unless they
have read something in the Daily Mail which has made them feel indignant. >>>
I don't need to go anywhere near the Daily Mail to read stuff that makes
me indignant.
Sometimes no further than here. Do you really want contributions from
females here?
Do you really want to contribute? Or just hint occasionally at what your views are?
I suppose to some of us it might seem strange that many women are
content to be examined by a male obstetrician or gynaecologist.
Obviously if someone has strong religious beliefs or psychological
problems that make it imperative to have a female doctor, it would
be unreasonable and oppressive to insist that it be a male doctor.
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of a >>>>> trans woman in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable basis
for such an objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging the
curiosity of a patient who says "you're dressed as female but I
think you look a bit male. Are you in fact a trans woman? Can I see
your certificate?"
He hasn't got one.
And if he had one, do you think he needs to carry it with him at all
times? Just in case?
If he had one we would all know anyway.
If he had one the nmanager who preferred just to suspend the nurse only
had to tell the nurse that it existed.
And then what? Thanks for coming in right at the end of this discussion.
The question for you is, if you object to a person with a penis sharing
your changing room, does it then satisfy all your concerns and
objections if the person (call him he or she, it doesn't matter to me) brandishes a certificate called a GRC? Is the paperwork the crucial thing?
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of >>>>> women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are >>>>> that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime, >>>>> but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are
fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just
one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an
anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some >>>> details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a
multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll >>>> call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually >>>> had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to >>>> present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her, >>>> none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that >>>> there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of >>>> her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't >>>> do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender >>>> identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then
(mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to >>>> correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly >>>> chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what
I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the >>>> women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on
her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she >>>> was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the
building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far >>>> from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male >>>> body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the
men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk
wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about >>>> was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the >>>> ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the >>>> conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had >>>> complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only
their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was
because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a >>>> while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one
of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think >>>> that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right >>>> decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an >>>> ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same
concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"? >>>
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the >>> slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course
their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she
must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, >>> told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made >> an effort to find out why women objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:53:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you
have to protect minorities.
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
On 17 Feb 2025 at 15:24:51 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
And when populist scum get voted into power in this country, will he know how much riding roughshod over the rights of women contributed to it? Because I strongly suspect it is a high proportion of less-articulate non-graduate women
who object to transsexuals having *all* rights of women. Look at the recent you gov polls as to how quickly views on this are changing.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:53:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of >>>>>> women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are >>>>>> that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime, >>>>>> but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are
fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just
one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an
anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some >>>>> details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a
multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll
call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually >>>>> had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to >>>>> present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her,
none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that >>>>> there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of
her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender >>>>> identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then
(mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to >>>>> correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly >>>>> chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what
I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the
women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on
her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she
was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the
building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far >>>>> from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male
body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the
men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk
wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about
was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the >>>>> ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the >>>>> conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the >>>>> ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had >>>>> complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only
their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was
because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a >>>>> while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one
of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think >>>>> that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right >>>>> decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an
ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same >>>>> concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"?
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the >>>> slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course
their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she
must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, >>>> told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you have to protect minorities. And they are certainly not a negligible group despite our uncertainty.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 15:24:51 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
And when populist scum get voted into power in this country, will he
know how much riding roughshod over the rights of women contributed to
it?
Because I strongly suspect it is a high proportion of less-articulate non-graduate women who object to transsexuals having *all* rights of
women. Look at the recent you gov polls as to how quickly views on
this are changing.
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:53:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you
have to protect minorities.
Yes. And yet, some people seem very keen to promote the "rights" of
[a small noisy subset of] a larger and more powerful minority over
a smaller and more vulnerable one.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 10:50:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
That's kind of my point, really. But specifically in relation to people who >> identify as trans *after* having been charged or convicted of a sexual
offence. I don't think it necessarily tells us anything meaningful about
whether someone who has transitioned out of a genuine sense of gender
dysphoria is more likely to commit a sexual offence.
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of opinion >that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these days do not have >any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but merely a wish to change gender >on social grounds. As you say, we have no figures to suggest they are more >likely to commit sexual offences, but equally nothing to suggest that they are >less likely than other men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to >do so than born women.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr1q37.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception >>>>>>> Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd
token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the >>>>>>> centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its >>>>>>> been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,
until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
You're not even trying. Even if we were to accept your false premise
that if there were no women at Bletchley then that says something
about computing employees in the wider world, and your false premise
that "plugging wires" doesn't count as computing, there's an entire
Wikipedia article solely about the *7,500 women* who were at Bletchley,
which specifically names several who explicitly worked in cryptography
(in huts, if that somehow makes a difference).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Bletchley_Park
quote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level work such as
cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in other important areas, >> including as operators of cryptographic and communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding punched cards
or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating keyboards in commercial
installations; as that sort of activity was largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one single
female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously heard of.
Dominated by women - doing all the donkey work.
As per usual.
Margaret Hamilton has been in the news recently.
There is also the issue that men tend to be named and recognised for significant work even if the breakthrough was made by a woman in any scientific or technological area. That tends to bias the "previously heard of" towards men.
Note also that the women people have heard of are not token women named
just to show that women were involved. They are the few whose ground
breaking work makes them difficult to ignore and whose work cannot be attributed to a male colleague.
On 17/02/2025 16:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:53:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of >>>>>>> women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime, >>>>>>> but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are
fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just
one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an
anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some >>>>>> details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a
multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll
call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to >>>>>> present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her,
none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that
there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of
her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender >>>>>> identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then
(mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to >>>>>> correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly >>>>>> chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what
I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the
women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on
her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she
was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the
building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far
from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male
body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the
men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk
wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about
was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the >>>>>> ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the >>>>>> conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the >>>>>> ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had >>>>>> complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only
their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was
because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a
while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one
of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right >>>>>> decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an
ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same >>>>>> concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"?
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the >>>>> slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course
their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she
must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you have to >> protect minorities. And they are certainly not a negligible group despite our
uncertainty.
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often
by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 18:00:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 16:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you
have to protect minorities. And they are certainly not a negligible
group despite our uncertainty.
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of
protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often
by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
"Butch" you mean - or am I reading something that just slipped out? If
you made the same remark (about uppercuts) to Dr Upton who is 6ft tall
and broad shouldered it would undoubtedly be regarded as transphobic.
I for one wouldn't want Dr Upton persecuted, but I wouldn't want him
to use the women's changing room either. This is a common mode of
false argument, arbitrarily excluding the middle ground.
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"?
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in >mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the >slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes -
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course >their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she >must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you >did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
"Owen Rees" <orees@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:vourc3$12g8c$1@dont-email.me...
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr1q37.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr19uu.2fqh.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-02-15, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 13:10:22 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1beeuFjlpmU1@mid.individual.net...
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk are
scared of
being assaulted by men and need protection.
Just as you'll possibly also have noticed that ever since its inception
Usenet in general has been dominated by men. With just the odd >>>>>>>> token woman, here and there.
That's actual women; not men posting using women's names
Invented by men and used buy men IOW.
And while IT in general has featured the odd token woman down the >>>>>>>> centuries Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper spring to minds again its >>>>>>>> been all manly men
I wouldn't say that they are all entirely "manly".
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women, >>>>>> until post WWII.
Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
You're not even trying. Even if we were to accept your false premise
that if there were no women at Bletchley then that says something
about computing employees in the wider world, and your false premise
that "plugging wires" doesn't count as computing, there's an entire
Wikipedia article solely about the *7,500 women* who were at Bletchley, >>>> which specifically names several who explicitly worked in cryptography >>>> (in huts, if that somehow makes a difference).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Bletchley_Park
quote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level work such as
cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in other important areas,
including as operators of cryptographic and communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding punched >>> cards
or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating keyboards in commercial >>> installations; as that sort of activity was largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one single >>> female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously heard of.
Dominated by women - doing all the donkey work.
As per usual.
Margaret Hamilton has been in the news recently.
There is also the issue that men tend to be named and recognised for
significant work even if the breakthrough was made by a woman in any
scientific or technological area. That tends to bias the "previously heard >> of" towards men.
Note also that the women people have heard of are not token women named
just to show that women were involved. They are the few whose ground
breaking work makes them difficult to ignore and whose work cannot be
attributed to a male colleague.
Without looking anything up, apart from Marie Curie obviously, and the
woman who discovered quasars, and Rosalind Franklin, I can't think of any renowned female scientists.
Even the claim that in her work on emulsifiers while working for either Unilever
or J.Lyons, Margaret Thatcher, or Margaret Roberts as she maybe then was , invented "Mr Whippy" Ice Cream, is a myth.
Saying which, while at Oxford .she studied under Dorothy Hodgkin the renowned Nobel Prize winning Chemist, who was also a noted Marxist.
So another female scientist most people won't have heard of
As a gross oversimplification up to the 20'c much of science was conducted by essentially amateurs Darwin, Lavoisier Faraday who did their experimental work
in their spare time. Whereas women who had any spare time were more likely to spend it writing novels. If not on their needlework.
bb
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 10:50:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge" >><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
That's kind of my point, really. But specifically in relation to
people who identify as trans *after* having been charged or
convicted of a sexual offence. I don't think it necessarily tells us
anything meaningful about whether someone who has transitioned out
of a genuine sense of gender dysphoria is more likely to commit a
sexual offence.
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of
opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these
days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have
no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences,
but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other
men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 10:50:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
That's kind of my point, really. But specifically in relation to
people who identify as trans *after* having been charged or
convicted of a sexual offence. I don't think it necessarily tells us
anything meaningful about whether someone who has transitioned out
of a genuine sense of gender dysphoria is more likely to commit a
sexual offence.
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of
opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these
days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have
no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences,
but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other
men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born
women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public
ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
On 17/02/2025 15:24, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women
do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
I do it by writing it down. Is that too confusing?
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have
no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences,
but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other
men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public
ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 20:00:38 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 10:50:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
That's kind of my point, really. But specifically in relation to
people who identify as trans *after* having been charged or
convicted of a sexual offence. I don't think it necessarily tells us >>>>> anything meaningful about whether someone who has transitioned out
of a genuine sense of gender dysphoria is more likely to commit a
sexual offence.
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of
opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these
days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have
no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences,
but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other
men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>> women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public
ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
I didn't say they did it "on a whim".
I said they did because socially or psychologically they felt they had
to. But most of them do not want to alter their male body either
physically or hormonally. That is not necessarily to belittle their
need, but it is a salient factor.
On 17/02/2025 16:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 15:24:51 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>> do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
And when populist scum get voted into power in this country, will he
know how
much riding roughshod over the rights of women contributed to it?
Because I
strongly suspect it is a high proportion of less-articulate
non-graduate women
who object to transsexuals having *all* rights of women. Look at the
recent
you gov polls as to how quickly views on this are changing.
I don't think I will continue arguing with you in this particular
discussion (which should not be interpreted as changing my mind). But
just to recap, or maybe restate my opinion.
I speak to lots of women, a high proportion of whom have mental health problems and a history of physical or sexual abuse. I don't think the
topic of women's safe spaces has ever come up and it is not something I deliberately introduce into the conversation. They talk at length about
being physically or sexually abused by men and quite often by their own mothers. That is what has ruined their lives. The memory of those
events. Not a fear of toilets or changing rooms. Unisex toilets are now common in workplaces and restaurants and hospitals. But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should
there be. What we seem to be focusing on is the possibility that a
person who presents as a woman would appear to others to have masculine attributes so that there is a suspicion that they have a penis. Should
they be barred from a female changing room? Obviously if they are
obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even violence from the men who use that room. So is the only problem "please
keep your penis concealed" and is that a rule that would solve the
problem for anyone who is unhappy about shared spaces?
IS it really fair to stipulate that if a woman asks to be treated only
by a female clinician the male ambulance crew should turn back and be replaced with a female crew, and the male A&E doctor should make some
phone calls and ask a female A&E doctor to abandon her night off and
come in to see that patient? Are chaperones insufficient?
Is it really fair to ask a trans female clinician to "prove" that she is female because she appears to the patient to have some masculine
attributes? Or do you say that it doesn't matter whether she looks very female - it is a principle that should be set in stone that all
clinicians should admit to being born male if they were born male? A
rule that would be reminiscent of a religious edict?
but I'm also aware that sometimes I just have to make a decision even if its
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other
men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public >>ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential
reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of
opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>> days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>> no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>> but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other
men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>> women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public
ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through
something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential
reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>>opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>>days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but >>>>>merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>>no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>>but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other >>>>>men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>>women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public >>>ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not >>>something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through
something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential
reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:24:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>> I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>>> opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>>> days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>>> no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>>> but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other >>>>>> men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>>> women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public
ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through
something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential
reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to
transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
social and psychological. Psychological rewards can make people do almost anything.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>>>opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>>>days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but >>>>>>merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>>>no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>>>but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other >>>>>>men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>>>women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public >>>>ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the >>>>option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not >>>>something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through
something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential
reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
The reward doesn't have to be be that a rational or non-criminal person
would perceive as a reward. It only has to be what the person carrying out the action would perceive as a potential reward. Even if they are wholly mistaken.
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:09:40 +0000, I <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:
but I'm also aware that sometimes I just have to make a decision even if its >>Please feel free to insert this apostophe where it belongs in the line
above: '
Also "lack of", in "wasn't even consensus"?
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:24:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>> I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>>>> opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>>>> days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but >>>>>>> merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>>>> no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>>>> but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other >>>>>>> men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>>>> women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public
ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through
something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential
reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to
transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
social and psychological. Psychological rewards can make people do almost
anything.
Social rewards are vastly less likely than (severe) social penalties. Psychological rewards - just when I thought your claims couldn't get
any vaguer.
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 20:00:38 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 10:50:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
That's kind of my point, really. But specifically in relation to
people who identify as trans *after* having been charged or
convicted of a sexual offence. I don't think it necessarily tells us >>>>>> anything meaningful about whether someone who has transitioned out >>>>>> of a genuine sense of gender dysphoria is more likely to commit a
sexual offence.
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of
opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>> days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>> no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>> but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other
men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>> women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public
ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
I didn't say they did it "on a whim".
Ok, so how about everything I said apart from the last sentence?
I said they did because socially or psychologically they felt they had
to. But most of them do not want to alter their male body either
physically or hormonally. That is not necessarily to belittle their
need, but it is a salient factor.
Is it?
And I am not sure how or why anyone is supposed to argue about things
that are apparently your evidence-free gut feelings.
On 17/02/2025 05:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 16:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 15:24:51 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most >>>>> women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>>> do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
And when populist scum get voted into power in this country, will he
know how
much riding roughshod over the rights of women contributed to it?
Because I
strongly suspect it is a high proportion of less-articulate
non-graduate women
who object to transsexuals having *all* rights of women. Look at the
recent
you gov polls as to how quickly views on this are changing.
I don't think I will continue arguing with you in this particular
discussion (which should not be interpreted as changing my mind). But
just to recap, or maybe restate my opinion.
I speak to lots of women, a high proportion of whom have mental health
problems and a history of physical or sexual abuse. I don't think the
topic of women's safe spaces has ever come up and it is not something I
deliberately introduce into the conversation. They talk at length about
being physically or sexually abused by men and quite often by their own
mothers. That is what has ruined their lives. The memory of those
events. Not a fear of toilets or changing rooms. Unisex toilets are now
common in workplaces and restaurants and hospitals. But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should
there be. What we seem to be focusing on is the possibility that a
person who presents as a woman would appear to others to have masculine
attributes so that there is a suspicion that they have a penis. Should
they be barred from a female changing room? Obviously if they are
obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even
violence from the men who use that room. So is the only problem "please
keep your penis concealed" and is that a rule that would solve the
problem for anyone who is unhappy about shared spaces?
IS it really fair to stipulate that if a woman asks to be treated only
by a female clinician the male ambulance crew should turn back and be
replaced with a female crew, and the male A&E doctor should make some
phone calls and ask a female A&E doctor to abandon her night off and
come in to see that patient? Are chaperones insufficient?
Is it really fair to ask a trans female clinician to "prove" that she is
female because she appears to the patient to have some masculine
attributes? Or do you say that it doesn't matter whether she looks very
female - it is a principle that should be set in stone that all
clinicians should admit to being born male if they were born male? A
rule that would be reminiscent of a religious edict?
QUOTE:
Obviously if they [physical males who wish to be treated as female*] are obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even violence from the men who use that room.
ENDQUOTE
Not from me, I assure you. What is the evidence for this potential violence?
On 17/02/2025 05:38 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 15:24, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>> do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
I do it by writing it down. Is that too confusing?
Someone appears to be confusing the process of arriving at the
conclusion that "most women don't object" with the physical action of
hitting the keys of a computer keyboard.
If there are no accurate statistics (and you say that there are none to cite), on what basis are you drawing your conclusion(s)?
That's a reasonable enough question, isn't it?
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:09:40 +0000, I <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>> wrote:
but I'm also aware that sometimes I just have to make a decision even if its
Please feel free to insert this apostophe where it belongs in the line
above: '
Also "lack of", in "wasn't even consensus"?
No; I meant there wasn't a consensus. That is, I wasn't going against everybody else's opinion, even if I'd been justified in doing so. I was choosing between two different options, both of which had support. I'll readily admit that the option I did choose was the one which matched my opinion. But if I had been in a minority of one in holding that opinion, I would have given greater thought as to whether I should impose it.
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are >>>talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
The reward doesn't have to be be that a rational or non-criminal person
would perceive as a reward. It only has to be what the person carrying out >> the action would perceive as a potential reward. Even if they are wholly
mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large >numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there?
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:09:40 +0000, I <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>> wrote:
but I'm also aware that sometimes I just have to make a decision even if its
Please feel free to insert this apostophe where it belongs in the line >>>> above: '
Also "lack of", in "wasn't even consensus"?
No; I meant there wasn't a consensus. That is, I wasn't going against
everybody else's opinion, even if I'd been justified in doing so. I was
choosing between two different options, both of which had support. I'll
readily admit that the option I did choose was the one which matched my
opinion. But if I had been in a minority of one in holding that opinion, I >> would have given greater thought as to whether I should impose it.
Oh, it sounded from your story that at the end there was a consensus
in favour of your decision.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:31:42 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:24:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>>>>> opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>>>>> days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but >>>>>>>> merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>>>>> no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>>>>> but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other >>>>>>>> men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>>>>> women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number >>>>>> of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public >>>>>> ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even >>>>>> (or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through >>>>> something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential
reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to
transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
social and psychological. Psychological rewards can make people do almost >>> anything.
Social rewards are vastly less likely than (severe) social penalties.
Psychological rewards - just when I thought your claims couldn't get
any vaguer.
Funny that. Body dysmorphia is clearly psychological.
Just another psychological reward. Have you looked up autogynephilia?
Used to be what they said about transvestites. I'm not supporting the
theory, just thought you might be righteously offended by it.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:31:42 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:24:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>>>>> opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>>>>> days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but >>>>>>>> merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>>>>> no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>>>>> but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other >>>>>>>> men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>>>>>> women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number >>>>>> of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public >>>>>> ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even >>>>>> (or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through >>>>> something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential
reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to
transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
social and psychological. Psychological rewards can make people do almost >>> anything.
Social rewards are vastly less likely than (severe) social penalties.
Psychological rewards - just when I thought your claims couldn't get
any vaguer.
Funny that. Body dysmorphia is clearly psychological. Just another psychological reward. Have you looked up autogynephilia? Used to be what they said about transvestites. I'm not supporting the theory, just thought you might be righteously offended by it.
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:52 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 19:09:40 +0000, I <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> >>>> wrote:
but I'm also aware that sometimes I just have to make a decision even if its
Please feel free to insert this apostophe where it belongs in the line >>>> above: '
Also "lack of", in "wasn't even consensus"?
No; I meant there wasn't a consensus. That is, I wasn't going against
everybody else's opinion, even if I'd been justified in doing so. I was
choosing between two different options, both of which had support. I'll
readily admit that the option I did choose was the one which matched my
opinion. But if I had been in a minority of one in holding that opinion, I >> would have given greater thought as to whether I should impose it.
Oh, it sounded from your story that at the end there was a consensus
in favour of your decision.
On 17/02/2025 05:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 16:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 15:24:51 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most >>>>> women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>>> do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
And when populist scum get voted into power in this country, will he
know how
much riding roughshod over the rights of women contributed to it?
Because I
strongly suspect it is a high proportion of less-articulate
non-graduate women
who object to transsexuals having *all* rights of women. Look at the
recent
you gov polls as to how quickly views on this are changing.
I don't think I will continue arguing with you in this particular
discussion (which should not be interpreted as changing my mind). But
just to recap, or maybe restate my opinion.
I speak to lots of women, a high proportion of whom have mental health
problems and a history of physical or sexual abuse. I don't think the
topic of women's safe spaces has ever come up and it is not something I
deliberately introduce into the conversation. They talk at length about
being physically or sexually abused by men and quite often by their own
mothers. That is what has ruined their lives. The memory of those
events. Not a fear of toilets or changing rooms. Unisex toilets are now
common in workplaces and restaurants and hospitals. But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should
there be. What we seem to be focusing on is the possibility that a
person who presents as a woman would appear to others to have masculine
attributes so that there is a suspicion that they have a penis. Should
they be barred from a female changing room? Obviously if they are
obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even
violence from the men who use that room. So is the only problem "please
keep your penis concealed" and is that a rule that would solve the
problem for anyone who is unhappy about shared spaces?
IS it really fair to stipulate that if a woman asks to be treated only
by a female clinician the male ambulance crew should turn back and be
replaced with a female crew, and the male A&E doctor should make some
phone calls and ask a female A&E doctor to abandon her night off and
come in to see that patient? Are chaperones insufficient?
Is it really fair to ask a trans female clinician to "prove" that she is
female because she appears to the patient to have some masculine
attributes? Or do you say that it doesn't matter whether she looks very
female - it is a principle that should be set in stone that all
clinicians should admit to being born male if they were born male? A
rule that would be reminiscent of a religious edict?
QUOTE:
Obviously if they [physical males who wish to be treated as female*] are obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even violence from the men who use that room.
ENDQUOTE
Not from me, I assure you. What is the evidence for this potential
violence?
[* That'll do fine as a description. Demands that I should think
differently about it will not be entertained.]
On 17 Feb 2025 at 20:35:13 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 05:59 PM, The Todal wrote:Violence in the men's changing room seems an especially remote possibility in a hospital!
On 17/02/2025 16:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 15:24:51 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most >>>>>> women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>>>> do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
And when populist scum get voted into power in this country, will he
know how
much riding roughshod over the rights of women contributed to it?
Because I
strongly suspect it is a high proportion of less-articulate
non-graduate women
who object to transsexuals having *all* rights of women. Look at the
recent
you gov polls as to how quickly views on this are changing.
I don't think I will continue arguing with you in this particular
discussion (which should not be interpreted as changing my mind). But
just to recap, or maybe restate my opinion.
I speak to lots of women, a high proportion of whom have mental health
problems and a history of physical or sexual abuse. I don't think the
topic of women's safe spaces has ever come up and it is not something I
deliberately introduce into the conversation. They talk at length about
being physically or sexually abused by men and quite often by their own
mothers. That is what has ruined their lives. The memory of those
events. Not a fear of toilets or changing rooms. Unisex toilets are now >>> common in workplaces and restaurants and hospitals. But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should
there be. What we seem to be focusing on is the possibility that a
person who presents as a woman would appear to others to have masculine
attributes so that there is a suspicion that they have a penis. Should
they be barred from a female changing room? Obviously if they are
obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even
violence from the men who use that room. So is the only problem "please
keep your penis concealed" and is that a rule that would solve the
problem for anyone who is unhappy about shared spaces?
IS it really fair to stipulate that if a woman asks to be treated only
by a female clinician the male ambulance crew should turn back and be
replaced with a female crew, and the male A&E doctor should make some
phone calls and ask a female A&E doctor to abandon her night off and
come in to see that patient? Are chaperones insufficient?
Is it really fair to ask a trans female clinician to "prove" that she is >>> female because she appears to the patient to have some masculine
attributes? Or do you say that it doesn't matter whether she looks very
female - it is a principle that should be set in stone that all
clinicians should admit to being born male if they were born male? A
rule that would be reminiscent of a religious edict?
QUOTE:
Obviously if they [physical males who wish to be treated as female*] are
obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even
violence from the men who use that room.
ENDQUOTE
Not from me, I assure you. What is the evidence for this potential violence? >>
On 17/02/2025 05:38 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 15:24, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>> do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
I do it by writing it down. Is that too confusing?
Someone appears to be confusing the process of arriving at the
conclusion that "most women don't object" with the physical action of
hitting the keys of a computer keyboard.
If there are no accurate statistics (and you say that there are none to cite), on what basis are you drawing your conclusion(s)?
That's a reasonable enough question, isn't it?
On 17 Feb 2025 at 18:00:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 16:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:53:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of >>>>>>>> women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are
fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just
one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an
anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some >>>>>>> details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a >>>>>>> multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll
call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to
present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her,
none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that
there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of
her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender
identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then
(mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to >>>>>>> correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly >>>>>>> chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what
I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the
women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on
her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she
was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the
building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far
from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male
body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the
men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk
wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about
was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the >>>>>>> ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the
conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the >>>>>>> ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had >>>>>>> complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only
their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was
because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a
while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one
of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right >>>>>>> decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an
ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same >>>>>>> concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"?
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the
slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course
their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she
must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most
women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>> do or don't object)
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you have to >>> protect minorities. And they are certainly not a negligible group despite our
uncertainty.
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of
protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often
by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
"Butch" you mean - or am I reading something that just slipped out? If you made the same remark (about uppercuts) to Dr Upton who is 6ft tall and broad shouldered it would undoubtedly be regarded as transphobic.
I for one wouldn't want Dr Upton persecuted, but I wouldn't want him to use the women's changing room either. This is a common mode of false argument, arbitrarily excluding the
middle ground.
Is it really fair to ask a trans female clinician to "prove" that she is female because she appears to the patient to have some masculine
attributes? Or do you say that it doesn't matter whether she looks very female - it is a principle that should be set in stone that all
clinicians should admit to being born male if they were born male? A
rule that would be reminiscent of a religious edict?
On 17/02/2025 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2025 05:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 16:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 15:24:51 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 01:53 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so
why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my
initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women
objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most >>>>>> women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>>>> do or don't object)
So how and why do you claim that "most women don't object"?
And when populist scum get voted into power in this country, will he
know how
much riding roughshod over the rights of women contributed to it?
Because I
strongly suspect it is a high proportion of less-articulate
non-graduate women
who object to transsexuals having *all* rights of women. Look at the
recent
you gov polls as to how quickly views on this are changing.
I don't think I will continue arguing with you in this particular
discussion (which should not be interpreted as changing my mind). But
just to recap, or maybe restate my opinion.
I speak to lots of women, a high proportion of whom have mental health
problems and a history of physical or sexual abuse. I don't think the
topic of women's safe spaces has ever come up and it is not something I
deliberately introduce into the conversation. They talk at length about
being physically or sexually abused by men and quite often by their own
mothers. That is what has ruined their lives. The memory of those
events. Not a fear of toilets or changing rooms. Unisex toilets are now >>> common in workplaces and restaurants and hospitals. But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should
there be. What we seem to be focusing on is the possibility that a
person who presents as a woman would appear to others to have masculine
attributes so that there is a suspicion that they have a penis. Should
they be barred from a female changing room? Obviously if they are
obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even
violence from the men who use that room. So is the only problem "please
keep your penis concealed" and is that a rule that would solve the
problem for anyone who is unhappy about shared spaces?
IS it really fair to stipulate that if a woman asks to be treated only
by a female clinician the male ambulance crew should turn back and be
replaced with a female crew, and the male A&E doctor should make some
phone calls and ask a female A&E doctor to abandon her night off and
come in to see that patient? Are chaperones insufficient?
Is it really fair to ask a trans female clinician to "prove" that she is >>> female because she appears to the patient to have some masculine
attributes? Or do you say that it doesn't matter whether she looks very
female - it is a principle that should be set in stone that all
clinicians should admit to being born male if they were born male? A
rule that would be reminiscent of a religious edict?
QUOTE:
Obviously if they [physical males who wish to be treated as female*] are
obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even
violence from the men who use that room.
ENDQUOTE
Not from me, I assure you. What is the evidence for this potential
violence?
I am, of course, referring to changing rooms in gyms, swimming pools etc rather than in hospitals.
And public toilets. If a trans woman goes into the gents at a site where young men are smoking, taking drugs etc, it is highly likely that the
young men will at the very least mock and insult the trans woman and
quite likely physically assault her. If you believe otherwise then your
next assignment is to "make the effort" to find out why many young men
behave thuggishly and in what circumstances.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are >>>>talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>>transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
The reward doesn't have to be be that a rational or non-criminal person
would perceive as a reward. It only has to be what the person carrying out >>> the action would perceive as a potential reward. Even if they are wholly >>> mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large >>numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there?
Lots of people do things that I would consider irrational, and for reasons that I would consider equally irrational. That doesn't stop them doing it. Gender transition for reasons other than genuine dysphoria doesn't seem to
me to be any more implausibly irrational than the many irrational things
that irrational people already do.
(And, FWIW, I don't think that a sexual offender faking dysphoria in order
to get sent to a women's prison rather than a men's prison is irrational.
Far from it; that's one of the few scenarios where the potential
rewards are entirely rational).
As to whether there are a lot of them, I suspect there are not huge
numbers, no. But that's one of the reasons why I think it would be
beneficial to have some reliable data.
On 17/02/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 18:00:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 16:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:53:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are
fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just
one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an
anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some
details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a >>>>>>>> multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll
call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to
present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her,
none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that
there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of
her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender
identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then
(mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to
correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what
I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the
women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on
her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she
was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the
building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far
from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male
body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the
men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk
wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about
was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the >>>>>>>> ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the
conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the >>>>>>>> ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had >>>>>>>> complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only
their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was
because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a
while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one
of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right >>>>>>>> decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an
ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same >>>>>>>> concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"?
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the
slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course
their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she
must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most >>>>> women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>>> do or don't object)
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you have to >>>> protect minorities. And they are certainly not a negligible group despite our
uncertainty.
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of >>> protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often >>> by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
"Butch" you mean - or am I reading something that just slipped out? If you >> made the same remark (about uppercuts) to Dr Upton who is 6ft tall and broad >> shouldered it would undoubtedly be regarded as transphobic.
No it wouldn't.
And I didn't mean "butch". It is rather old fashioned to believe that
women who are physically strong and could hold their own in a fist fight
are likely to be lesbians. Is that what you meant?
Women aren't all the delicate little flowers that they are portrayed to
be. The noisiest women who assert their right to women's exclusive
spaces and want to exclude trans women, are thuggish in body and/or spirit.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:04:04 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as thuggish;
Women aren't all the delicate little flowers that they are portrayed to
be. The noisiest women who assert their right to women's exclusive
spaces and want to exclude trans women, are thuggish in body and/or spirit. >>
while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from that observation,
maybe the confident women are also expressing the needs of quieter, more vulnerable women?
I find your views extraordinarily reactionary - maybe I'll just give up this discussion for a bit.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:37:13 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:31:42 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:24:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>> I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>>>>>> opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these >>>>>>>>> days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but >>>>>>>>> merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have >>>>>>>>> no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences, >>>>>>>>> but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other >>>>>>>>> men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born
women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number >>>>>>> of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public >>>>>>> ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even >>>>>>> (or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the >>>>>>> option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not >>>>>>> something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through >>>>>> something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential >>>>>> reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>>> transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
social and psychological. Psychological rewards can make people do almost >>>> anything.
Social rewards are vastly less likely than (severe) social penalties.
Psychological rewards - just when I thought your claims couldn't get
any vaguer.
Funny that. Body dysmorphia is clearly psychological. Just another
psychological reward. Have you looked up autogynephilia? Used to be
what they said about transvestites. I'm not supporting the theory,
just thought you might be righteously offended by it.
And gender dysphoria, the usual reason given nowadays for transition when unpicked is just another way of describing a psychological need, like body dysmorphia but different. And it is actually quite strange that a century after Freud we still find a primarily sexual motivation both frivolous and faintly distasteful, despite it being such a fundamental human motivation.
Legally, yes, I wouldn't have been able to defend my decision at a tribunal, had it come to that. I might even have been overruled by my own management, had the complainants taken it over my head. And I was aware of that at the time. I even told the complainants that if they disagreed with me, they should take it up with HR.
They were called into a meeting at around 11am, given the bad
news and told they would be escorted back to their desks to collect their personal effects and then escorted from the building. Nearly all of them
went straight from the office to the pub, where I joined them in my lunch break to buy them all a drink and apologise, as best I could, for the way they'd been treated (I hadn't been involved in the decision of who to let
go, and wasn't even in the meeting where they were told to sling their collective hooks).
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are
talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>>> transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
The reward doesn't have to be be that a rational or non-criminal person >>>> would perceive as a reward. It only has to be what the person carrying out >>>> the action would perceive as a potential reward. Even if they are wholly >>>> mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large >>> numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there?
Lots of people do things that I would consider irrational, and for reasons >> that I would consider equally irrational. That doesn't stop them doing it. >> Gender transition for reasons other than genuine dysphoria doesn't seem to >> me to be any more implausibly irrational than the many irrational things
that irrational people already do.
Ok, but Roger is saying that this covers a *majority* of trans people.
He's saying that a *majority* of trans people are not just mildly, but extremely irrational. Your "well some people are irrational" hand-waving
in no way begins to justify that claim.
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as
thuggish; while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from
that observation, maybe the confident women are also expressing the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women?
On 17/02/2025 17:59, The Todal wrote:
Is it really fair to ask a trans female clinician to "prove" that she is
female because she appears to the patient to have some masculine
attributes? Or do you say that it doesn't matter whether she looks very
female - it is a principle that should be set in stone that all
clinicians should admit to being born male if they were born male? A
rule that would be reminiscent of a religious edict?
I was rather hoping to have a clear answer to the above before leaving
this rather circular discussion.
On 17/02/2025 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2025 05:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
QUOTE:
Obviously if they [physical males who wish to be treated as female*] are
obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and even
violence from the men who use that room.
ENDQUOTE
[* That'll do fine as a description. Demands that I should think
differently about it will not be entertained.]
Does this refer to "physical males who want to be treated as females"?
Sounds accurate enough to me even if others disagree.
On 17/02/2025 22:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:04:04 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as thuggish;
Women aren't all the delicate little flowers that they are portrayed to
be. The noisiest women who assert their right to women's exclusive
spaces and want to exclude trans women, are thuggish in body and/or spirit. >>>
Rarely, unless the description is justified. When they march alongside
Tommy Robinson and shout abuse at police and refugee centres, I think
that qualifies to be called thuggish. Unless you are Elon Musk and want
to defend all freedom of expression that does not involve criticism of
Elon Musk.
Sandie Peggie and Dr Beth Upton. You may see Ms Peggie as the weaker,
more vulnerable party in the dispute. I think, on the contrary, that Dr
Upton is the victim facing a dogpile of hostile bigots.
while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from that observation,
maybe the confident women are also expressing the needs of quieter, more
vulnerable women?
I find your views extraordinarily reactionary - maybe I'll just give up this >> discussion for a bit.
I find your views reactionary, in the sense that you seem to adhere to traditionalist, or creationist, or biblical definitions of men and
women. Or maybe you don't but just give that impression by the way you present your point of view.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:04:04 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as thuggish;
On 17 Feb 2025 at 18:00:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 17/02/2025 16:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:53:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are
fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just
one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an
anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some
details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a >>>>>>>>> multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll
call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to
present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her,
none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly.
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that
there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of
her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender
identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then
(mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to
correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what
I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the
women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on
her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she
was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the
building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far
from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male
body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the
men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk
wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about
was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the
ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the
conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the >>>>>>>>> ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had
complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only
their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was
because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a
while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one
of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right
decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an
ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same >>>>>>>>> concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"?
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the
slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course
their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she
must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge >>>>>>> transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most >>>>>> women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>>>> do or don't object)
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you have to
protect minorities. And they are certainly not a negligible group despite our
uncertainty.
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of >>>> protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often >>>> by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
"Butch" you mean - or am I reading something that just slipped out? If you >>> made the same remark (about uppercuts) to Dr Upton who is 6ft tall and broad
shouldered it would undoubtedly be regarded as transphobic.
No it wouldn't.
And I didn't mean "butch". It is rather old fashioned to believe that
women who are physically strong and could hold their own in a fist fight
are likely to be lesbians. Is that what you meant?
Women aren't all the delicate little flowers that they are portrayed to
be. The noisiest women who assert their right to women's exclusive
spaces and want to exclude trans women, are thuggish in body and/or spirit. >>
while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from that observation,
maybe the confident women are also expressing the needs of quieter, more vulnerable women?
I find your views extraordinarily reactionary - maybe I'll just give up this discussion for a bit.
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:37:13 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:31:42 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 21:24:10 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of >>>>>>>>>> opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these
days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but >>>>>>>>>> merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have
no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences,
but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other >>>>>>>>>> men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born
women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely >>>>>>>>> implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number >>>>>>>> of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public >>>>>>>> ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even >>>>>>>> (or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the >>>>>>>> option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not >>>>>>>> something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through >>>>>>> something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential >>>>>>> reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are >>>>>> talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>>>> transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
social and psychological. Psychological rewards can make people do almost >>>>> anything.
Social rewards are vastly less likely than (severe) social penalties.
Psychological rewards - just when I thought your claims couldn't get
any vaguer.
Funny that. Body dysmorphia is clearly psychological. Just another
psychological reward. Have you looked up autogynephilia? Used to be
what they said about transvestites. I'm not supporting the theory,
just thought you might be righteously offended by it.
And gender dysphoria, the usual reason given nowadays for transition when
unpicked is just another way of describing a psychological need, like body >> dysmorphia but different. And it is actually quite strange that a century
after Freud we still find a primarily sexual motivation both frivolous and >> faintly distasteful, despite it being such a fundamental human motivation.
Because sexual activities are generally carried out in private.
The bullshit "autogynephilia" claim is that trans people are
effectively carrying out their sexual activities in public and
demanding participation from everyone around them. Are you
seriously claiming you have somehow failed to understand this?
Not a fear of toilets or changing rooms. Unisex toilets are now common in workplaces and restaurants and hospitals. But I guess there aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should there be.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:18:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:Lots of people do things that I would consider irrational, and for reasons >>> that I would consider equally irrational. That doesn't stop them doing it. >>> Gender transition for reasons other than genuine dysphoria doesn't seem to >>> me to be any more implausibly irrational than the many irrational things >>> that irrational people already do.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are >>>>>> talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>>>> transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
The reward doesn't have to be be that a rational or non-criminal person >>>>> would perceive as a reward. It only has to be what the person carrying out
the action would perceive as a potential reward. Even if they are wholly >>>>> mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large >>>> numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there? >>>
Ok, but Roger is saying that this covers a *majority* of trans people.
He's saying that a *majority* of trans people are not just mildly, but
extremely irrational. Your "well some people are irrational" hand-waving
in no way begins to justify that claim.
Not at all, that is absolutely untrue. I didn't say it was mistaken or frivolous. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying they have a strong
gender dysphoria, a strong motivation to change; but that it doesn't extend to
wanting to change their male body. Interestingly, the number of people wanting
surgery for body transition hasn't changed much, but there has been a huge growth in people finding being male intolerable and wanting to have the psychological role of a woman. But being fully aware that having a female body
is impossible and brutal measures to approximate it are not for them. I think they are wise, the complication rate of both surgery and hormone treatment is high.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:18:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:Lots of people do things that I would consider irrational, and for reasons >>> that I would consider equally irrational. That doesn't stop them doing it. >>> Gender transition for reasons other than genuine dysphoria doesn't seem to >>> me to be any more implausibly irrational than the many irrational things >>> that irrational people already do.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular
given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are >>>>>> talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>>>> transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
The reward doesn't have to be be that a rational or non-criminal
person would perceive as a reward. It only has to be what the
person carrying out the action would perceive as a potential
reward. Even if they are wholly mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large >>>> numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there? >>>
Ok, but Roger is saying that this covers a *majority* of trans people.
He's saying that a *majority* of trans people are not just mildly, but
extremely irrational. Your "well some people are irrational" hand-waving
in no way begins to justify that claim.
Not at all, that is absolutely untrue. I didn't say it was mistaken or frivolous. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying they have
a strong gender dysphoria, a strong motivation to change; but that it
doesn't extend to wanting to change their male body. Interestingly,
the number of people wanting surgery for body transition hasn't
changed much, but there has been a huge growth in people finding being
male intolerable and wanting to have the psychological role of a
woman. But being fully aware that having a female body is impossible
and brutal measures to approximate it are not for them. I think they
are wise, the complication rate of both surgery and hormone treatment
is high.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:20:19 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:04:04 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote:Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as thuggish;
On 17 Feb 2025 at 18:00:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 17/02/2025 16:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:53:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 15:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 21:07:37 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Again, yes, I would be surprised. Not only at the professed ability of
women to identify trans women from their behaviour, when the chances are
that most of us encounter no more than one trans woman in our lifetime,
but the possibility that women would actually care.
I can't speak for women, obviously. But in my experience most transwomen are
fairly easily identifiable as trans. And I've encountered several, not just
one. I'd be surprised if women found it any harder.
As to whether women care, I think you'd have to ask them that. But maybe an
anecdote is useful here. This involves real people, so I'm eliding some
details, but, I think, all the key facts are left in.
Some time last century, I managed a department at the UK HQ of a >>>>>>>>>> multinational tech company. One of my staff members was a transwoman. I'll
call her Susan, for no particular reason other than that I never actually
had any member of my staff called Susan.
Susan was, I think, fairly obviously trans, although she did her best to
present as female. I and my deputy knew she was trans before we hired her,
none of the others did but they cottoned on fairly quickly. >>>>>>>>>>
Susan was good at her job and, within the team, popular. I was aware that
there were some members of staff elsewhere in the building who made fun of
her behind her back, but they didn't do it in front of her and they didn't
do it in front of me and my team.
Within the team, in fact, everyone was quite defensive of Susan's gender
identity. When customers misgendered her, which happened every now and then
(mainly because of her voice), all the other team members were quick to
correct them. The other women on the team accepted her into their girly
chats and occasional ladies' night out.
But then something happened at, IIRC, the company Christmas party. From what
I was told afterwards (I wasn't part of the conversation), a couple of the
women, emboldened a little by alcohol, pressed Susan for more information on
her background, including how she came to realised she was trans, when she
was planning to have "the op", and whether she fancied any of the men in the
building.
Susan's response wasn't what they were expecting. She told them that, far
from planning surgical gender reassignment, she was happy to retain a male
body and simply present as female. And not only did she not fancy any of the
men in the company, but she had a steady girlfriend.
Monday morning, back at work, I had a delegation of female staff at my desk
wanting to talk about Susan. In particular, what they wanted to talk about
was that they wanted me to tell Susan that she could no longer use the
ladies' toilets. The basis for that demand was that, in the light of the
conversation the previous Friday evening, they no longer felt that Susan was
a "real" woman.
I declined their request. I pointed out that Susan had been using the
ladies' facilities ever since she'd joined the company, and nobody had
complained. I pointed out that nothing about Susan had changed, it was only
their perception of her which had. And the only reason that had changed was
because they had previously made assumptions about Susan which turned out to
be mistaken.
In the end, they, a little grudgingly, accepted my position. And, after a
while, things did settle down and they started treating Susan more like "one
of the girls" again. But it was never quite the same.
The question is, do you think their response was irrational? Do you think
that my decision was the right one? And what would have been the right
decision had we been working in, say, a healthcare facility rather than an
ISP and it was patients, rather than colleagues, who raised the same >>>>>>>>>> concerns?
Mark
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"?
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the
slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes
-
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course
their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she
must have noticed there was a problem.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge >>>>>>>> transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
Fair enough. Your next step is to make an effort to find out why most >>>>>>> women don't object.
(Neither of us can cite any accurate statistics to show how many women >>>>>>> do or don't object)
The whole point of protected minorities in a democracy is that you have to
protect minorities. And they are certainly not a negligible group despite our
uncertainty.
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of >>>>> protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often >>>>> by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
"Butch" you mean - or am I reading something that just slipped out? If you >>>> made the same remark (about uppercuts) to Dr Upton who is 6ft tall and broad
shouldered it would undoubtedly be regarded as transphobic.
No it wouldn't.
And I didn't mean "butch". It is rather old fashioned to believe that
women who are physically strong and could hold their own in a fist fight >>> are likely to be lesbians. Is that what you meant?
Women aren't all the delicate little flowers that they are portrayed to
be. The noisiest women who assert their right to women's exclusive
spaces and want to exclude trans women, are thuggish in body and/or spirit. >>>
while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from that observation,
maybe the confident women are also expressing the needs of quieter, more
vulnerable women?
I find your views extraordinarily reactionary - maybe I'll just give up this >> discussion for a bit.
For perspective, you really sound like an Edwardian gentleman describing the suffragettes.
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as
thuggish; while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from
that observation, maybe the confident women are also expressing the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women?
The specific "confident women" you are lauding are *oppressing* the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women. That's the whole bloody point.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:54:44 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as
thuggish; while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from
that observation, maybe the confident women are also expressing the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women?
The specific "confident women" you are lauding are *oppressing* the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women. That's the whole bloody point.
And when Reform get 60% of the female vote in a general election
you'll still be telling yourself that!
On 2025-02-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:54:44 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as
thuggish; while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from
that observation, maybe the confident women are also expressing the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women?
The specific "confident women" you are lauding are *oppressing* the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women. That's the whole bloody point.
And when Reform get 60% of the female vote in a general election
you'll still be telling yourself that!
If that happens it'll be because the other parties are pandering
to the fascists that you're applauding.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 00:28:15 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:54:44 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:And when Reform get 60% of the female vote in a general election
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as
thuggish; while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from >>>>> that observation, maybe the confident women are also expressing the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women?
The specific "confident women" you are lauding are *oppressing* the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women. That's the whole bloody point. >>>
you'll still be telling yourself that!
If that happens it'll be because the other parties are pandering
to the fascists that you're applauding.
And Reform are the fascists they are pandering to? How does that work
then?
You'd think that would *reduce* the Reform vote.
However, logic aside, if that makes sense to you, fair enough.
On 17/02/2025 21:53, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 17/02/2025 05:59 PM, The Todal wrote:
QUOTE:
Obviously if they [physical males who wish to be treated as female*]
are obliged to use a male changing room they can expect hostility and
even violence from the men who use that room.
ENDQUOTE
[* That'll do fine as a description. Demands that I should think
differently about it will not be entertained.]
Does this refer to "physical males who want to be treated as females"?
Sounds accurate enough to me even if others disagree.
I'm not demanding anything, but what should 'treated as female' entail ?
On 17/02/2025 22:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:18:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensLots of people do things that I would consider irrational, and for reasons >>>> that I would consider equally irrational. That doesn't stop them doing it. >>>> Gender transition for reasons other than genuine dysphoria doesn't seem to >>>> me to be any more implausibly irrational than the many irrational things >>>> that irrational people already do.
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular >>>>>>> given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are >>>>>>> talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>>>>> transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
The reward doesn't have to be be that a rational or non-criminal person >>>>>> would perceive as a reward. It only has to be what the person carrying out
the action would perceive as a potential reward. Even if they are wholly >>>>>> mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large >>>>> numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there? >>>>
Ok, but Roger is saying that this covers a *majority* of trans people.
He's saying that a *majority* of trans people are not just mildly, but
extremely irrational. Your "well some people are irrational" hand-waving >>> in no way begins to justify that claim.
Not at all, that is absolutely untrue. I didn't say it was mistaken or
frivolous. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying they have a strong
gender dysphoria, a strong motivation to change; but that it doesn't extend to
wanting to change their male body. Interestingly, the number of people wanting
surgery for body transition hasn't changed much, but there has been a huge >> growth in people finding being male intolerable and wanting to have the
psychological role of a woman. But being fully aware that having a female body
is impossible and brutal measures to approximate it are not for them. I think
they are wise, the complication rate of both surgery and hormone treatment is
high.
I think they are wise. I think people should be strongly discouraged
from undertaking life-changing surgery that is likely to be irreversible
and perhaps make them infertile. Maybe one day the doctors who recommend
such surgery will be seen as dangerous experimenters.
Which is, of course, a good reason why trans women should never be
compelled to undergo castration merely to please those people (likely to
be both men and women, judging from the comments at the foot of Times articles) who insist that nobody with a penis should be allowed into a women's toilet or changing room.
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment tribunal
about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers himself to be a woman
in her changing room.
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:18:16 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 21:24:10 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensLots of people do things that I would consider irrational, and for reasons >>>> that I would consider equally irrational. That doesn't stop them doing it. >>>> Gender transition for reasons other than genuine dysphoria doesn't seem to >>>> me to be any more implausibly irrational than the many irrational things >>>> that irrational people already do.
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What is the potential reward? It had better be pretty spectacular >>>>>>> given all the downsides I mentioned. And given by definition we are >>>>>>> talking about people who do not have dysmorphia, and are choosing to >>>>>>> transition on "social grounds", whatever that means.
The reward doesn't have to be be that a rational or non-criminal
person would perceive as a reward. It only has to be what the
person carrying out the action would perceive as a potential
reward. Even if they are wholly mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large >>>>> numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there? >>>>
Ok, but Roger is saying that this covers a *majority* of trans people.
He's saying that a *majority* of trans people are not just mildly, but
extremely irrational. Your "well some people are irrational" hand-waving >>> in no way begins to justify that claim.
Not at all, that is absolutely untrue. I didn't say it was mistaken or
frivolous. You are putting words into my mouth. I am saying they have
a strong gender dysphoria, a strong motivation to change; but that it
doesn't extend to wanting to change their male body. Interestingly,
the number of people wanting surgery for body transition hasn't
changed much, but there has been a huge growth in people finding being
male intolerable and wanting to have the psychological role of a
woman. But being fully aware that having a female body is impossible
and brutal measures to approximate it are not for them. I think they
are wise, the complication rate of both surgery and hormone treatment
is high.
I'm not putting words in your mouth - you're contradicting yourself.
You're claiming people don't have dysmorphia because the techniques
to address it satisfactorily don't exist. That doesn't make any sense.
On 2025-02-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 00:28:15 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:54:44 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:And when Reform get 60% of the female vote in a general election
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as >>>>>> thuggish; while men who do so are powerful and pioneering. Apart from >>>>>> that observation, maybe the confident women are also expressing the >>>>>> needs of quieter, more vulnerable women?
The specific "confident women" you are lauding are *oppressing* the
needs of quieter, more vulnerable women. That's the whole bloody point. >>>>
you'll still be telling yourself that!
If that happens it'll be because the other parties are pandering
to the fascists that you're applauding.
And Reform are the fascists they are pandering to? How does that work
then?
I can only assume you have never watched the news in the last...
well, ever. The Tories did Brexit in order to try and head off UKIP.
Did that work? Then they went further and further to the far right
to try and head off Reform. Did that work? Now Labour are doing the
same. Do you really think it will work this time? It reminds me of
that joke about the definition of insanity.
You'd think that would *reduce* the Reform vote.
Only if you hadn't been paying attention.
However, logic aside, if that makes sense to you, fair enough.
Logic is *why* it makes sense.
On 17/02/2025 22:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:20:19 GMT, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
For perspective, you really sound like an Edwardian gentleman
describing the suffragettes.
Thanks, that amuses me.
It would be amusing if the women who object to trans women (I really
don't like the term trans-exclusionary radical feminists because I doubt
if many of them are feminists) saw themselves as the equivalent of suffragettes.
The suffragettes campaigned for votes for women and had to endure imprisonment
and barbaric forced-feeding...
Seeing how the NHS is said to be short of money and waiting lists so
long, how can Fife NHS justify spending so much money trying to
disciplin 1 nurse on such a ridiculous issue. Apparently she said the dr >shouldnt be using the ladies cos he was a man and this is termed >misgendering. I just wonder if the GRA will make misgendering a crime?
Or is it 1 already? Couldnt an apology do? It reminds me of the other >ridiculous nonsense which actually went to court when footballer was
sick in a taxi, the driver locked the doors and called the police and
then the footballer was rude to the policeman. Couldnt they just
apologise and pay the driver to have his taxi cleaned?
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal
about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers himself to be a
woman
in her changing room.
Seeing how the NHS is said to be short of money and waiting lists so
long, how can Fife NHS justify spending so much money trying to
disciplin 1 nurse on such a ridiculous issue. Apparently she said the dr shouldnt be using the ladies cos he was a man and this is termed misgendering. I just wonder if the GRA will make misgendering a crime?
Or is it 1 already? Couldnt an apology do? It reminds me of the other ridiculous nonsense which actually went to court when footballer was
sick in a taxi, the driver locked the doors and called the police and
then the footballer was rude to the policeman. Couldnt they just
apologise and pay the driver to have his taxi cleaned?
mike
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:37:45 +0000, miked <mike@library.net> wrote:
Seeing how the NHS is said to be short of money and waiting lists so
long, how can Fife NHS justify spending so much money trying to
disciplin 1 nurse on such a ridiculous issue. Apparently she said the dr
shouldnt be using the ladies cos he was a man and this is termed
misgendering. I just wonder if the GRA will make misgendering a crime?
Or is it 1 already? Couldnt an apology do? It reminds me of the other
ridiculous nonsense which actually went to court when footballer was
sick in a taxi, the driver locked the doors and called the police and
then the footballer was rude to the policeman. Couldnt they just
apologise and pay the driver to have his taxi cleaned?
Just a point on this latter case, the footballer wasn't just sick in the
taxi but also smashed one of the taxi windows.
criminal damage,
the passenger is intoxicated and seemingly incapable of reasonable
discussion - are recommended by their own trade associations and licensing authorities to go straight to the police. Once they'd got to the police station and the footballer had sobered up a little, an offer was made to pay for the damage, which the taxi driver accepted and withdrew his complaint of criminal damage. So the driver didn't do anything wrong here; he was following guidelines and best practice and accepted a resolution which de-escalated the conflict and removed it from the criminal justice system.
Whether the police should have gone ahead with a criminal prosecution
against the footballer for abusive language towards a police officer is a different matter. The court concluded that it was not an offence. That seems to me to be a reasonable decision.
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Lots of people do things that I would consider irrational, and for reasons >> that I would consider equally irrational. That doesn't stop them doing it. >> Gender transition for reasons other than genuine dysphoria doesn't seem to >> me to be any more implausibly irrational than the many irrational things
that irrational people already do.
Ok, but Roger is saying that this covers a *majority* of trans people.
He's saying that a *majority* of trans people are not just mildly, but >extremely irrational. Your "well some people are irrational" hand-waving
in no way begins to justify that claim.
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
Seeing how the NHS is said to be short of money and waiting lists so
long, how can Fife NHS justify spending so much money trying to
disciplin 1 nurse on such a ridiculous issue. Apparently she said the dr shouldnt be using the ladies cos he was a man and this is termed misgendering. I just wonder if the GRA will make misgendering a crime?
Or is it 1 already? Couldnt an apology do? It reminds me of the other ridiculous nonsense which actually went to court when footballer was
sick in a taxi, the driver locked the doors and called the police and
then the footballer was rude to the policeman. Couldnt they just
apologise and pay the driver to have his taxi cleaned?
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 20:00:38 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-17, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of
opinion that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these
days do not have any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but
merely a wish to change gender on social grounds. As you say, we have
no figures to suggest they are more likely to commit sexual offences,
but equally nothing to suggest that they are less likely than other
men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to do so than born >>>> women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely
implausible.
I find it entirely implausible. The idea that any noticeable number
of people would voluntarily choose to go through the stress, public
ridicule, job insecurity, and risk of violence that accompany even
(or perhaps especially) a non-medical transition, if they had the
option of just not doing it, seems pretty ridiculous. This is not
something anyone is doing on a whim.
You seem to be assuming that there are no people who will go through something uncomfortable and potentially dangerous if the potential reward justifies it. I find that entirely implausible.
On 17 Feb 2025 12:21:38 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 10:50:11 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
That's kind of my point, really. But specifically in relation to people who >>> identify as trans *after* having been charged or convicted of a sexual
offence. I don't think it necessarily tells us anything meaningful about >>> whether someone who has transitioned out of a genuine sense of gender
dysphoria is more likely to commit a sexual offence.
I am not going to justify it because laziness, but there is body of opinion >> that says the majority of men choosing to change gender these days do not have
any clinically diagnosable body dysmorphia, but merely a wish to change gender
on social grounds. As you say, we have no figures to suggest they are more >> likely to commit sexual offences, but equally nothing to suggest that they are
less likely than other men to do so. And that leaves them much more likely to
do so than born women.
I have heard that suggestion, too. I do not find it entirely implausible.
But neither do I find it particularly convincing. I would like to see more research on the matter. As I've said, I think the GRA is flawed and needs to be updated. But I would like that update to be informed by demonstrable data rather than mere opinion.
On 18/02/2025 01:37 AM, miked wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
Seeing how the NHS is said to be short of money and waiting lists so
long, how can Fife NHS justify spending so much money trying to
disciplin 1 nurse on such a ridiculous issue. Apparently she said the dr
shouldnt be using the ladies cos he was a man and this is termed
misgendering. I just wonder if the GRA will make misgendering a crime?
Or is it 1 already? Couldnt an apology do? It reminds me of the other
ridiculous nonsense which actually went to court when footballer was
sick in a taxi, the driver locked the doors and called the police and
then the footballer was rude to the policeman. Couldnt they just
apologise and pay the driver to have his taxi cleaned?
The lady concerned in that latter case was obviously far too important
to consider trivialities like other, lesser, folk and their livelihoods.
The little fact that the London taxi scale of fares includes a charge of
£60 for soiling the interior of the vehicle by vomiting was just too
minor a consideration for her. Only Little People pay.
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:37:45 +0000, miked <mike@library.net> wrote:
Seeing how the NHS is said to be short of money and waiting lists so
long, how can Fife NHS justify spending so much money trying to
disciplin 1 nurse on such a ridiculous issue. Apparently she said the dr
shouldnt be using the ladies cos he was a man and this is termed
misgendering. I just wonder if the GRA will make misgendering a crime?
Or is it 1 already? Couldnt an apology do? It reminds me of the other
ridiculous nonsense which actually went to court when footballer was
sick in a taxi, the driver locked the doors and called the police and
then the footballer was rude to the policeman. Couldnt they just
apologise and pay the driver to have his taxi cleaned?
Just a point on this latter case, the footballer wasn't just sick in the
taxi but also smashed one of the taxi windows. That's a clear case of criminal damage, and taxi drivers in such circumstances - particularly if
the passenger is intoxicated and seemingly incapable of reasonable
discussion - are recommended by their own trade associations and licensing authorities to go straight to the police. Once they'd got to the police station and the footballer had sobered up a little, an offer was made to pay for the damage, which the taxi driver accepted and withdrew his complaint of criminal damage. So the driver didn't do anything wrong here; he was following guidelines and best practice and accepted a resolution which de-escalated the conflict and removed it from the criminal justice system.
Whether the police should have gone ahead with a criminal prosecution
against the footballer for abusive language towards a police officer is a different matter. The court concluded that it was not an offence. That seems to me to be a reasonable decision.
Mark
On 17/02/2025 17:59, The Todal wrote:
Not a fear of toilets or changing rooms. Unisex toilets are now
common in workplaces and restaurants and hospitals. But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should
there be.
There are unisex changing rooms at swimming pools and gyms.
Probably less common in the UK than other parts of Europe.
Because sexual activities are generally carried out in private.
On 17/02/2025 12:49, kat wrote:
On 17/02/2025 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2025 12:43, kat wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:58, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having dealings with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems reasonable >>>>>>>> to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of >>>>>>>> whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more bothered by >>>>>>>> casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have a lot >>>>>>>> more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed before >>>>>>>> them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their womenfolk >>>>>>> are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That they, as >>>>>>> men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and should be >>>>>>> admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But >>>>>>> actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public >>>>>>> discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that "we" need >>>>>>> to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya >>>>>>> Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to >>>>>>> unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their views. But >>>>>>> nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of women or >>>>>>> even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the >>>>>>> nature of things there will then be people of both sexes climbing on the
bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans >>>>>>> people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded >>>>>>> beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, known to >>>>>>> the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from outside >>>>>>>
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their partners or
family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing the tiny >>>>>>> number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that it is usually
men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women.
I have said nothing to justify this rather extraordinary allegation from you.
It is my impression that you claim to speak, on the thinnest of evidence, >>>>> for womankind. But deciding who speaks for the majority is actually
pointless. The nation cannot vote on whether trans women can use public >>>>> toilets. It isn't a policy decision that rests on a democratic vote.
Why not?
There are hardly any female contributors to this newsgroup and none of them
can claim to represent a majority of women. However, I base my views on >>>>> discussions I have had with many women in recent years, none of whom appear
to have any worries about trans women in public toilets let alone being >>>>> treated by a trans female doctor, nurse, member of ambulance crew, dentist,
etc.
Maybe they just don't tell you what they really think? maybe you only hear >>>> "I don't mind" and not "but I know some do".
Maybe anything. Maybe they shudder at having to accept treatment, even in an
emergency, from someone with conspicuous tattoos or an androgynous
appearance. Maybe they would feel uncomfortable if they walked past a trans >>> woman customer in Tesco.
I think in reality it doesn't cross anyone's mind at all. Unless they have >>> read something in the Daily Mail which has made them feel indignant.
I don't need to go anywhere near the Daily Mail to read stuff that makes me >> indignant.
Sometimes no further than here. Do you really want contributions from females
here?
Do you really want to contribute? Or just hint occasionally at what your views are?
I suppose to some of us it might seem strange that many women are content >>>>> to be examined by a male obstetrician or gynaecologist. Obviously if >>>>> someone has strong religious beliefs or psychological problems that make it
imperative to have a female doctor, it would be unreasonable and oppressive
to insist that it be a male doctor.
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of a trans
woman in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable basis for such an >>>>> objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging the curiosity of a patient
who says "you're dressed as female but I think you look a bit male. Are you
in fact a trans woman? Can I see your certificate?"
He hasn't got one.
And if he had one, do you think he needs to carry it with him at all times? >>> Just in case?
If he had one we would all know anyway.
If he had one the nmanager who preferred just to suspend the nurse only had to
tell the nurse that it existed.
And then what? Thanks for coming in right at the end of this discussion. The question for you is, if you object to a person with a penis sharing your changing room, does it then satisfy all your concerns and objections if the person (call him he or she, it doesn't matter to me) brandishes a certificate called a GRC? Is the paperwork the crucial thing?
On 17/02/2025 23:00, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/02/2025 17:59, The Todal wrote:
Not a fear of toilets or changing rooms. Unisex toilets are now
common in workplaces and restaurants and hospitals. But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor
should there be.
There are unisex changing rooms at swimming pools and gyms.
Probably less common in the UK than other parts of Europe.
I am willing to stand corrected. Perhaps I should not have cancelled my
gym membership after all, but I wasn't making much use of the gym.
I am probably one of many men who would prefer to have changing
facilities where I (and perhaps my young son) should not have to look at
any hairy naked men. So it isn't just females who may have that
distaste. Properly designed modern unisex changing rooms should enable everyone to feel comfortable and avoid needless hostility to those who
look as if they don't fit.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, >> told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made an effort to find out why women objected.
mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there?
On 18 Feb 2025 at 10:39:29 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Whether the police should have gone ahead with a criminal prosecution
against the footballer for abusive language towards a police officer is a
different matter. The court concluded that it was not an offence. That seems >> to me to be a reasonable decision.
It is credible that calling him stupidly white (or whatever) was a complaint of racial discrimination rather than a racial insult. So I agree she had a reasonable defence. But was quite lucky in the circumstances.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrnvr7apa.27v.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large
numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there?
Without wishing to stir up a hornets nest in respect of opressive/fascist "therapy" the fact remains that many sexual preferences are the result of hormonal activity.
They are neither rational nor rational; but are one reason why so many otherwise ostensibly sensible people get themselves into so many
scrapes. Much to the delight of a prurient public,
( But none of which have any bearing on their ability to govern or do
just about anythging else, not governed by hormones.)
But simply because people are compelled to act in certain way as a
result of thier hormones, so that they have no effective choice in
the matter, doesn't thereby give them the right to trample over the
existing rights of other people.
bb
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:25:32 +0000, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Last century, so, 30 years ago? back when trans people were "transexual"rather
than "transgender"? before all the rather more recent demands for "rights"? >>
Back then I would think your female staff would have seen Susan as a woman in
mind and eventually one in body. Then they discovered Susan had not the
slightest intention of changing her body, and what is more, was - one presumes -
happily indulging in normal heterosexual sex with the girlfriend. Of course >> their perception changed. Susan went from someone they saw as another woman to
someone they saw as a man in a frock.
That was kind of my point. Susan hadn't changed. It was their perception of her that had changed. I didn't see that that was a good enough reason to start treating Susan differently, and said so.
You don't mention it but did you ever talk to Susan about it? After all she >> must have noticed there was a problem.
I didn't talk to her about it.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I didn't tell them what to think. I gave my opinion, and explained my
reasons for it. And, after discussing it, they accepted my viewpoint. I gave them the option of what to do if they still disagreed with me, and they didn't take it.
I did discuss it with my (female) number two. Her opinion was the same as mine - I didn't have to persuade her of that. She came to the discussion
with that opinion. That was another reason why I didn't feel it would be right to tell Susan to behave differently. The workplace isn't a democracy. My management style is to try to get consensus and buy-in where possible,
but I'm also aware that sometimes I just have to make a decision even if its unpopular. In this case, though, there wasn't even consensus.
Had anyone come to me the day after Susan started work there, and said they weren't comfortable with her being in the ladies toilet, then I would probably have taken that complaint more seriously. It was, in fact, one of the things I anticipated as potentially being an issue when we hired Susan
in the first place. But nobody did complain at the time.
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, >>> told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made >> an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who are taking the trouble to understand.
On 17/02/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote::
On 17 Feb 2025 at 18:00:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of >>> protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often >>> by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
"Butch" you mean - or am I reading something that just slipped out? If you >> made the same remark (about uppercuts) to Dr Upton who is 6ft tall and broad >> shouldered it would undoubtedly be regarded as transphobic.
No it wouldn't.
And I didn't mean "butch". It is rather old fashioned to believe that women who
are physically strong and could hold their own in a fist fight are likely to be
lesbians. Is that what you meant?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 01:37 AM, miked wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:07:22 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
I don't know if anyone has been following the current Fife employment
tribunal about a nurse sacked for not wanting a man who considers
himself to be a woman in her changing room.
Seeing how the NHS is said to be short of money and waiting lists so
long, how can Fife NHS justify spending so much money trying to
disciplin 1 nurse on such a ridiculous issue. Apparently she said the dr >>> shouldnt be using the ladies cos he was a man and this is termed
misgendering. I just wonder if the GRA will make misgendering a crime?
Or is it 1 already? Couldnt an apology do? It reminds me of the other
ridiculous nonsense which actually went to court when footballer was
sick in a taxi, the driver locked the doors and called the police and
then the footballer was rude to the policeman. Couldnt they just
apologise and pay the driver to have his taxi cleaned?
The lady concerned in that latter case was obviously far too important
to consider trivialities like other, lesser, folk and their livelihoods.
The little fact that the London taxi scale of fares includes a charge of
£60 for soiling the interior of the vehicle by vomiting was just too
minor a consideration for her. Only Little People pay.
That price seems about an order of magnitude too low when you include loss of income. But to be fair to her she was probably too drunk to be reasonable. I agree with you in principle, but I am less sure that taxi drivers should have the civil remedy not open to the rest of us of imprisoning and kidnapping their debtors.
The fundamental question is whether we *want* people to be able to claim they have
somehow changed sex, rather than are just transvestites or drag queens (which most
people wouldn't mind).
On 17/02/2025 22:20, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 22:04:04 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Women who express strong unpopular opinions are always described as thuggish;
Women aren't all the delicate little flowers that they are portrayed to
be. The noisiest women who assert their right to women's exclusive
spaces and want to exclude trans women, are thuggish in body and/or spirit. >>>
Rarely, unless the description is justified. When they march alongside Tommy Robinson and shout abuse at police and refugee centres, I think that qualifies
to be called thuggish. Unless you are Elon Musk and want to defend all freedom
of expression that does not involve criticism of Elon Musk.
Sandie Peggie and Dr Beth Upton. You may see Ms Peggie as the weaker, more vulnerable party in the dispute. I think, on the contrary, that Dr Upton is the
victim facing a dogpile of hostile bigots.
On 17/02/2025 22:04, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote::
On 17 Feb 2025 at 18:00:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of >>>> protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often >>>> by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
"Butch" you mean - or am I reading something that just slipped out? If you >>> made the same remark (about uppercuts) to Dr Upton who is 6ft tall and broad
shouldered it would undoubtedly be regarded as transphobic.
No it wouldn't.
And I didn't mean "butch". It is rather old fashioned to believe that women >> who
are physically strong and could hold their own in a fist fight are likely to be
lesbians. Is that what you meant?
Fascinating. When Roger referred to "butch" it never occured to me that butch
women were likely to be lesbians. I thought he just meant those of us who happen
to be taller and stronger than others!
On 17/02/2025 08:18, Owen Rees wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level work such as
cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in other important areas,
including as operators of cryptographic and communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding punched cards
or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating keyboards in commercial >>> installations; as that sort of activity was largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one single >>> female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously heard of.
Dominated by women - doing all the donkey work.
As per usual.
Margaret Hamilton has been in the news recently.
There is also the issue that men tend to be named and recognised for
significant work even if the breakthrough was made by a woman in any
scientific or technological area. That tends to bias the “previously heard >> of” towards men.
Note also that the women people have heard of are not token women named
just to show that women were involved. They are the few whose ground
breaking work makes them difficult to ignore and whose work cannot be
attributed to a male colleague.
How do you know?
I have no doubt that, at this moment, people are digging into history to
find significant homosexuals, transexuals, even redheads (perhaps).
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 08:18, Owen Rees wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level
work such as cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in
other important areas, including as operators of cryptographic and
communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding
punched cards or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating
keyboards in commercial installations; as that sort of activity was
largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one
single female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously
heard of.
Dominated by women - doing all the donkey work.
As per usual.
Margaret Hamilton has been in the news recently.
There is also the issue that men tend to be named and recognised for
significant work even if the breakthrough was made by a woman in any
scientific or technological area. That tends to bias the “previously
heard of” towards men.
Note also that the women people have heard of are not token women named
just to show that women were involved. They are the few whose ground
breaking work makes them difficult to ignore and whose work cannot be
attributed to a male colleague.
How do you know?
I have no doubt that, at this moment, people are digging into history
to find significant homosexuals, transexuals, even redheads (perhaps).
I do not have to do any digging to name Alan Turing after whom an
award has been named.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:vp1sbq$1m9mr$1@dont-email.me...
The fundamental question is whether we *want* people to be able to claim they
have
somehow changed sex, rather than are just transvestites or drag queens (which
most
people wouldn't mind).
The further question then surely, is how we could possibly *prevent* people from
claiming they had somehow changed sex.
No more nor less than we could possibly prevent other people from claiiming they
were able to play to play the bagpipes.
Just so long as in neither instance, were we thereby compelled to wait around for a
demonstration
bb
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:59:01 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should
there be.
I use a public leisure centre which has all 3 options - a male only
changing room which does not have cubicles; a female one but I don't
know whether it has cubicles or not.; a unisex changing area with
individual cubicles. The unisex one is mostly used by families with
young children except when school swimming lessons are taking place
and adults are not allowed into the male and female changing rooms in
which case, adults have to use the unisex area.
I don't see any issues with this so why do you think there shouldn't
be a unisex changing room?
[...]
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:vp1sbq$1m9mr$1@dont-email.me...
The fundamental question is whether we *want* people to be able to claim they have
somehow changed sex, rather than are just transvestites or drag queens (which most
people wouldn't mind).
The further question then surely, is how we could possibly *prevent* people from
claiming they had somehow changed sex.
No more nor less than we could possibly prevent other people from claiiming they
were able to play to play the bagpipes.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 13:00:06 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 22:04, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 18:46, Roger Hayter wrote::
On 17 Feb 2025 at 18:00:24 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
You mean trans people? I agree, they are obviously a minority in need of >>>>> protection. And often targeted for abuse, ridicule and persecution often >>>>> by the sort of grown women who could floor you with an uppercut.
"Butch" you mean - or am I reading something that just slipped out? If you >>>> made the same remark (about uppercuts) to Dr Upton who is 6ft tall and broad
shouldered it would undoubtedly be regarded as transphobic.
No it wouldn't.
And I didn't mean "butch". It is rather old fashioned to believe that women >>> who
are physically strong and could hold their own in a fist fight are likely to be
lesbians. Is that what you meant?
Fascinating. When Roger referred to "butch" it never occured to me that butch
women were likely to be lesbians. I thought he just meant those of us who
happen
to be taller and stronger than others!
I think this was a bit of a private game. I was being accused of all sorts of nasty prejudices that were a quite unjustified, just because I wasn't supporting all "transgender rights". So I was playing the same game with his expressed belittling of women who could stand up for themselves. I didn't really think he was being homophobic, just showing that two could play that opportunistic game.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 11:59:01 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The little fact that the London taxi scale of fares includes a charge of
60 for soiling the interior of the vehicle by vomiting was just too
minor a consideration for her. Only Little People pay.
That price seems about an order of magnitude too low when you include loss of >income. But to be fair to her she was probably too drunk to be reasonable. I >agree with you in principle, but I am less sure that taxi drivers should have >the civil remedy not open to the rest of us of imprisoning and kidnapping >their debtors.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, >>>> told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men want a straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman they are talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think might be the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 10:39:29 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Whether the police should have gone ahead with a criminal prosecution
against the footballer for abusive language towards a police officer is a >>> different matter. The court concluded that it was not an offence. That seems
to me to be a reasonable decision.
It is credible that calling him stupidly white (or whatever) was a complaint >> of racial discrimination rather than a racial insult. So I agree she had a >> reasonable defence. But was quite lucky in the circumstances.
Would anyone care to speculate what, in similar circumstances, the outcome might be should a white female drunk footballer call a police officer ‘black and stupid’?
On 17/02/2025 13:49, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 12:49, kat wrote:
On 17/02/2025 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2025 12:43, kat wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:58, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal"
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having
dealings with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems
reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of >>>>>>>>> whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more
bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have >>>>>>>>> a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be
instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed >>>>>>>>> before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their
womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That >>>>>>>> they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and
should be
admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But >>>>>>>> actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public >>>>>>>> discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that
"we" need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya >>>>>>>> Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to >>>>>>>> unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their
views. But
nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of
women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the >>>>>>>> nature of things there will then be people of both sexes
climbing on the
bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans >>>>>>>> people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded >>>>>>>> beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor,
known to
the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from
outside
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their
partners or
family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing >>>>>>>> the tiny
number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way
representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that
it is usually
men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women.
I have said nothing to justify this rather extraordinary
allegation from you.
It is my impression that you claim to speak, on the thinnest of
evidence, for womankind. But deciding who speaks for the majority
is actually pointless. The nation cannot vote on whether trans
women can use public toilets. It isn't a policy decision that
rests on a democratic vote.
Why not?
There are hardly any female contributors to this newsgroup and
none of them can claim to represent a majority of women. However,
I base my views on discussions I have had with many women in
recent years, none of whom appear to have any worries about trans
women in public toilets let alone being treated by a trans female
doctor, nurse, member of ambulance crew, dentist, etc.
Maybe they just don't tell you what they really think? maybe you
only hear "I don't mind" and not "but I know some do".
Maybe anything. Maybe they shudder at having to accept treatment,
even in an emergency, from someone with conspicuous tattoos or an
androgynous appearance. Maybe they would feel uncomfortable if they
walked past a trans woman customer in Tesco.
I think in reality it doesn't cross anyone's mind at all. Unless
they have read something in the Daily Mail which has made them feel
indignant.
I don't need to go anywhere near the Daily Mail to read stuff that
makes me indignant.
Sometimes no further than here. Do you really want contributions
from females here?
Do you really want to contribute? Or just hint occasionally at what
your views are?
I have been contributing in this group since its inception.
Right at the end??
I suppose to some of us it might seem strange that many women are
content to be examined by a male obstetrician or gynaecologist.
Obviously if someone has strong religious beliefs or psychological >>>>>> problems that make it imperative to have a female doctor, it would >>>>>> be unreasonable and oppressive to insist that it be a male doctor. >>>>>>
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of >>>>>> a trans woman in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable
basis for such an objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging >>>>>> the curiosity of a patient who says "you're dressed as female but
I think you look a bit male. Are you in fact a trans woman? Can I
see your certificate?"
He hasn't got one.
And if he had one, do you think he needs to carry it with him at all
times? Just in case?
If he had one we would all know anyway.
If he had one the nmanager who preferred just to suspend the nurse
only had to tell the nurse that it existed.
And then what? Thanks for coming in right at the end of this
discussion. The question for you is, if you object to a person with a
penis sharing your changing room, does it then satisfy all your
concerns and objections if the person (call him he or she, it doesn't
matter to me) brandishes a certificate called a GRC? Is the paperwork
the crucial thing?
I posted in this thread 3 times on the 13th, twice on the 14th, three
times on the 16th, as well as twice yesterday.
I apologise for having other things to do on the 15th.
Anyway, while many things do not bother me, personally, I have this
thing called empathy. I am aware that some are worried, and as far as
that goes the only thing that matters is the penis. Bits of paper don't change a thing in reality even if they do in law.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 13:03:29 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vp1sbq$1m9mr$1@dont-email.me...
The fundamental question is whether we *want* people to be able to claim they
have
somehow changed sex, rather than are just transvestites or drag queens (which
most
people wouldn't mind).
The further question then surely, is how we could possibly *prevent* people >> from
claiming they had somehow changed sex.
No more nor less than we could possibly prevent other people from claiiming >> they
were able to play to play the bagpipes.
Just so long as in neither instance, were we thereby compelled to wait around
for a
demonstration
bb
Why should we want to prevent people changing their gender, or apparent sex? We don't
stop people changing their name, unless they do so for fraudulent
purposes. All we need to do is make it an offences to lie or mislead about your sex at birth in certain clearly defined circumstances. Like most law, that doesn't stop people breaking the rules, but gives them a strong disincentive, and gives people harmed by their deception a remedy.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:30:46 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrnvr7apa.27v.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
mistaken.
It's getting more and more implausible the deeper we go. There are large >>> numbers of people transitioning to another gender by mistake, are there?
Without wishing to stir up a hornets nest in respect of opressive/fascist
"therapy" the fact remains that many sexual preferences are the result of
hormonal activity.
They are neither rational nor rational; but are one reason why so many
otherwise ostensibly sensible people get themselves into so many
scrapes. Much to the delight of a prurient public,
( But none of which have any bearing on their ability to govern or do
just about anythging else, not governed by hormones.)
If you don't think hormones have an affect on people's ability to govern, watch any sppech by Mussolini!
But simply because people are compelled to act in certain way as a
result of thier hormones, so that they have no effective choice in
the matter, doesn't thereby give them the right to trample over the
existing rights of other people.
bb
--
Roger Hayter
On 18/02/2025 10:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:37:45 +0000, miked <mike@library.net> wrote:
Seeing how the NHS is said to be short of money and waiting lists so
long, how can Fife NHS justify spending so much money trying to
disciplin 1 nurse on such a ridiculous issue. Apparently she said the dr >>> shouldnt be using the ladies cos he was a man and this is termed
misgendering. I just wonder if the GRA will make misgendering a crime?
Or is it 1 already? Couldnt an apology do? It reminds me of the other
ridiculous nonsense which actually went to court when footballer was
sick in a taxi, the driver locked the doors and called the police and
then the footballer was rude to the policeman. Couldnt they just
apologise and pay the driver to have his taxi cleaned?
Just a point on this latter case, the footballer wasn't just sick in the
taxi but also smashed one of the taxi windows.
In an effort to escape or to attract attention from passers by, because
the taxi driver had decided to drive to a police station without telling
his passengers where he was going or why he wasn't taking them home.
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:46:30 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 10:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:48:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 16/02/2025 21:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my previously >>>>> preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to arrange it
so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or she has >>>>> certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular
ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising member of
that religion).
I would only question how you can tell that from the doctor's name.
I don't think any of the doctors at my local surgery have names that
suggest any religious leanings or affiliations.
There are some names which are statistically more likely to be held by
people with certain religious affiliations. A given name of Mohammed, or a >>> surname of Singh, for example. It's not absolutely reliable, of course, but >>> it does give a clue.
I don't think it gives a very reliable clue. I don't think people change
their name when they decide to be atheists.
A given name of Mohamed might be associated with serious sexual assaults
on women. Merely because of one well known example.
If I wanted to entrust my care to a member of an ethnic or religious group who
I thought were statistically more likely to be honest and conscientious than others it would not concern me whether they believed in a god. Indeed, it would encourage me if I knew they didn't. But it is not likely, as you say, that I would know.
On 17/02/2025 15:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:46:30 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 10:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:48:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 16/02/2025 21:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my
previously
preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to
arrange it
so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or
she has
certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular
ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising
member of
that religion).
I would only question how you can tell that from the doctor's name.
I don't think any of the doctors at my local surgery have names that >>>>> suggest any religious leanings or affiliations.
There are some names which are statistically more likely to be held by >>>> people with certain religious affiliations. A given name of
Mohammed, or a
surname of Singh, for example. It's not absolutely reliable, of
course, but
it does give a clue.
I don't think it gives a very reliable clue. I don't think people change >>> their name when they decide to be atheists.
A given name of Mohamed might be associated with serious sexual assaults >>> on women. Merely because of one well known example.
If I wanted to entrust my care to a member of an ethnic or religious
group who
I thought were statistically more likely to be honest and
conscientious than
others it would not concern me whether they believed in a god. Indeed, it
would encourage me if I knew they didn't. But it is not likely, as you
say,
that I would know.
My experience is quite the opposite. Some christian I have met will
commit appalling acts then after repenting to their mythical being in
the sky they will feel absolved them of all guilt and gain a their conscience. Some think a 'sorry' will absolve them of any past wrongdoing.
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:59:01 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[...]
But I guess there
aren't unisex changing rooms at swimming pools or gyms, and nor should >>there be.
I use a public leisure centre which has all 3 options - a male only
changing room which does not have cubicles; a female one but I don't
know whether it has cubicles or not.; a unisex changing area with
individual cubicles. The unisex one is mostly used by families with
young children except when school swimming lessons are taking place
and adults are not allowed into the male and female changing rooms in
which case, adults have to use the unisex area.
I don't see any issues with this so why do you think there shouldn't
be a unisex changing room?
On 18/02/2025 13:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vp1sbq$1m9mr$1@dont-email.me...
The fundamental question is whether we *want* people to be able to claim they have
somehow changed sex, rather than are just transvestites or drag queens (which most
people wouldn't mind).
The further question then surely, is how we could possibly *prevent* people from
claiming they had somehow changed sex.
No more nor less than we could possibly prevent other people from claiiming they
were able to play to play the bagpipes.
People can claim they come from Venus, but we don't have to indulge them, or call them
by their Venusian (Venereal?) names.
On 17/02/2025 15:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 13:46:30 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 10:44, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 09:48:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/02/2025 21:43, Mark Goodge wrote:
This may be incredibly bigoted and shallow of me, but since my previously
preferred GP retired, if I need to book an appointment I try to arrange it
so that I get seen by a GP with a name which suggests that he or she has >>>>>> certain religious beliefs (or, at least, comes from a particular
ethno-religious background, even if not particularly a practising member of
that religion).
I would only question how you can tell that from the doctor's name.
I don't think any of the doctors at my local surgery have names that >>>>> suggest any religious leanings or affiliations.
There are some names which are statistically more likely to be held by >>>> people with certain religious affiliations. A given name of Mohammed, or a >>>> surname of Singh, for example. It's not absolutely reliable, of course, but
it does give a clue.
I don't think it gives a very reliable clue. I don't think people change >>> their name when they decide to be atheists.
A given name of Mohamed might be associated with serious sexual assaults >>> on women. Merely because of one well known example.
If I wanted to entrust my care to a member of an ethnic or religious group who
I thought were statistically more likely to be honest and conscientious than >> others it would not concern me whether they believed in a god. Indeed, it
would encourage me if I knew they didn't. But it is not likely, as you say, >> that I would know.
My experience is quite the opposite. Some christian I have met will
commit appalling acts then after repenting to their mythical being in
the sky they will feel absolved them of all guilt and gain a their conscience. Some think a 'sorry' will absolve them of any past wrongdoing.
YMMV
On 18/02/2025 12:20, kat wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:49, The Todal wrote:
On 17/02/2025 12:49, kat wrote:
On 17/02/2025 09:53, The Todal wrote:
On 16/02/2025 12:43, kat wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:58, The Todal wrote:
On 15/02/2025 13:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 15 Feb 2025 at 12:09:02 GMT, "The Todal"
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2025 09:25, Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:13:02 +0000, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
What are the reasonable, legitimate objections to having >>>>>>>>>>> dealings with a
trans woman?
Where genitalia are going to be displayed or handled seems >>>>>>>>>> reasonable
to me.
I note that almost all the posters on this thread are men, some of >>>>>>>>>> whom don't seem to realise that women are generally more
bothered by
casual nudity than men. Even more importantly, that women have >>>>>>>>>> a lot
more to fear from the opposite sex than men do and will be >>>>>>>>>> instinctively apprehensive about male genitalia being displayed >>>>>>>>>> before
them.
I notice that it is usually men who want to argue that their >>>>>>>>> womenfolk
are scared of being assaulted by men and need protection. That >>>>>>>>> they, as
men, are particularly sensitive to the concerns of women and >>>>>>>>> should be
admired for this display of compassion.
You may say it is men who casually dismiss the fears of women. But >>>>>>>>> actually we hear very little from women, either here or in public >>>>>>>>> discourse, and I think it is very presumptuous to claim that >>>>>>>>> "we" need
to protect women from scary trans females.
The loudest voices come from very few people. JK Rowling and Maya >>>>>>>>> Forstater are two of them. I know that both have been subjected to >>>>>>>>> unfair criticisms and unfair discrimination because of their >>>>>>>>> views. But
nevertheless they cannot claim to speak for the majority of
women or
even for a sizeable minority. They speak for themselves, and in the >>>>>>>>> nature of things there will then be people of both sexes
climbing on the
bandwagon and using the issue of women's spaces to argue that trans >>>>>>>>> people are mentally ill and should not be indulged in their deluded >>>>>>>>> beliefs.
We should bear in mind that:
a) in the case under discussion, the trans woman is a doctor, >>>>>>>>> known to
the other staff, not a weird stranger who has ambled in from >>>>>>>>> outside
b) most assaults on women are committed by men who are their >>>>>>>>> partners or
family members or disgruntled ex-partners. You can keep citing >>>>>>>>> the tiny
number of trans people who are rapists but they are in no way >>>>>>>>> representative of the trans community.
I note that with no apparent embarrassment, after claiming that >>>>>>>> it is usually
men that are speaking for women, you go on to speak for women. >>>>>>>>
I have said nothing to justify this rather extraordinary
allegation from you.
It is my impression that you claim to speak, on the thinnest of
evidence, for womankind. But deciding who speaks for the majority >>>>>>> is actually pointless. The nation cannot vote on whether trans
women can use public toilets. It isn't a policy decision that
rests on a democratic vote.
Why not?
There are hardly any female contributors to this newsgroup and
none of them can claim to represent a majority of women. However, >>>>>>> I base my views on discussions I have had with many women in
recent years, none of whom appear to have any worries about trans >>>>>>> women in public toilets let alone being treated by a trans female >>>>>>> doctor, nurse, member of ambulance crew, dentist, etc.
Maybe they just don't tell you what they really think? maybe you
only hear "I don't mind" and not "but I know some do".
Maybe anything. Maybe they shudder at having to accept treatment,
even in an emergency, from someone with conspicuous tattoos or an
androgynous appearance. Maybe they would feel uncomfortable if they
walked past a trans woman customer in Tesco.
I think in reality it doesn't cross anyone's mind at all. Unless
they have read something in the Daily Mail which has made them feel
indignant.
I don't need to go anywhere near the Daily Mail to read stuff that
makes me indignant.
Sometimes no further than here. Do you really want contributions
from females here?
Do you really want to contribute? Or just hint occasionally at what
your views are?
I have been contributing in this group since its inception.
Right at the end??
I suppose to some of us it might seem strange that many women are >>>>>>> content to be examined by a male obstetrician or gynaecologist.
Obviously if someone has strong religious beliefs or psychological >>>>>>> problems that make it imperative to have a female doctor, it would >>>>>>> be unreasonable and oppressive to insist that it be a male doctor. >>>>>>>
In the case under discussion the nurse objected to the presence of >>>>>>> a trans woman in her changing room. I can't see any reasonable
basis for such an objection. Nor can I see any basis for indulging >>>>>>> the curiosity of a patient who says "you're dressed as female but >>>>>>> I think you look a bit male. Are you in fact a trans woman? Can I >>>>>>> see your certificate?"
He hasn't got one.
And if he had one, do you think he needs to carry it with him at all >>>>> times? Just in case?
If he had one we would all know anyway.
If he had one the nmanager who preferred just to suspend the nurse
only had to tell the nurse that it existed.
And then what? Thanks for coming in right at the end of this
discussion. The question for you is, if you object to a person with a
penis sharing your changing room, does it then satisfy all your
concerns and objections if the person (call him he or she, it doesn't
matter to me) brandishes a certificate called a GRC? Is the paperwork
the crucial thing?
I posted in this thread 3 times on the 13th, twice on the 14th, three
times on the 16th, as well as twice yesterday.
I apologise for having other things to do on the 15th.
Anyway, while many things do not bother me, personally, I have this
thing called empathy. I am aware that some are worried, and as far as
that goes the only thing that matters is the penis. Bits of paper don't
change a thing in reality even if they do in law.
I think your final sentence is correct.
But those who confidently assert what "most women think" probably ought
to carry out some research first. I think that women who have male
children are less scared of penises. The same might apply to women who
have grown up with brothers. Or in those weird families where the adults freely go without clothing in the house when going to have a bath or a shower.
I think the intelligent, grownup attitude to penises is that they are
not the cause of violence against women. So having said that a GRC
doesn't change a thing, maybe you should go a step further and say that
a person who was born male does not become less of a threat to women
merely because he has had his genitals amputated.
On 18 Feb 2025 12:13:30 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 11:59:01 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The little fact that the London taxi scale of fares includes a charge of >>> £60 for soiling the interior of the vehicle by vomiting was just too
minor a consideration for her. Only Little People pay.
That price seems about an order of magnitude too low when you include loss of
income. But to be fair to her she was probably too drunk to be reasonable. I
agree with you in principle, but I am less sure that taxi drivers should have
the civil remedy not open to the rest of us of imprisoning and kidnapping
their debtors.
Apparently he phoned the police, and the police told him to drive to the nearest police station. That was confirmed by the police during their interview with the passengers afterward. So it wasn't something he did on
his own initiative.
The transcript[1] of the interview doesn't do them any favours. They repeatedly insist that the failure of the police to take the word of two drunk women over one (presumably sober) male taxi driver is solely due to misogyny and/or racism. They repeatedly state that it's "two against one" when it comes to testimony. They contradict themselves, in one sentence saying they have no problem paying the clean-up fee and then later refusing to pay it. They claimed they couldn't phone the police because they don't know the emergency number, not being British, and then later claimed that they did phone the police but the operator hung up on them. And a sense of entitlement does come though at many points, including saying "I'm going to post this shit on Twitter", "I've got all the fucking people in the world" and "I will get the fucking Chelsea lawyers on this".
In their defence, they were drunk, and people don't think straight when they're drunk. But that's precisely why their account of the incident has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
[1] Unfortunately, the only online outlet that appears to have published the full transcript is the Daily Mail. So I'd sugggest that you hold your nose before clicking on the lik, and then maybe go for a quick wash afterwards. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/womens-football/article-14356009/
Mark
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are
socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men want a >> straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman they are >> talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
I am sure your advice is well-meaning but I can only see the flaws in it.
You have sympathy for refugees and believe our nation should extend a
helping hand to them? No, don't trust your own opinions or the opinions
of your friends. Do some research online to discover the
opinions/reactions of "women in general" and you may well discover that
the UK is full up, that refugees are devious economic migrants, that
many of them are rapists or child abusers, and that really this is the opinion that everyone should now share.
You think that the Covid vaccines are a good thing? Don't be a mug. Most people who have read books and studied medicine will tell you that the vaccines cause more deaths than Covid itself.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 17:29:15 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 12:13:30 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 11:59:01 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The little fact that the London taxi scale of fares includes a
charge of £60 for soiling the interior of the vehicle by vomiting
was just too minor a consideration for her. Only Little People pay.
That price seems about an order of magnitude too low when you
include loss of income. But to be fair to her she was probably too
drunk to be reasonable. I agree with you in principle, but I am less
sure that taxi drivers should have the civil remedy not open to the
rest of us of imprisoning and kidnapping their debtors.
Apparently he phoned the police, and the police told him to drive to the
nearest police station. That was confirmed by the police during their
interview with the passengers afterward. So it wasn't something he
did on his own initiative.
The transcript[1] of the interview doesn't do them any favours. They
repeatedly insist that the failure of the police to take the word of two
drunk women over one (presumably sober) male taxi driver is solely due to
misogyny and/or racism. They repeatedly state that it's "two against one"
when it comes to testimony. They contradict themselves, in one sentence
saying they have no problem paying the clean-up fee and then later refusing >> to pay it. They claimed they couldn't phone the police because they don't
know the emergency number, not being British, and then later claimed that
they did phone the police but the operator hung up on them. And a sense of >> entitlement does come though at many points, including saying "I'm going to >> post this shit on Twitter", "I've got all the fucking people in the world" >> and "I will get the fucking Chelsea lawyers on this".
In their defence, they were drunk, and people don't think straight when
they're drunk. But that's precisely why their account of the incident
has to be taken with a very large pinch of salt.
[1] Unfortunately, the only online outlet that appears to have
published the full transcript is the Daily Mail. So I'd sugggest that
you hold your nose before clicking on the lik, and then maybe go for
a quick wash afterwards.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/womens-football/article-14356009/
Mark
I agree, the footballers certainly did not cover themselves with
glory, and there seem to be several public order and criminal damage
offences they could have been charged with. But the "stupidly white"
comment was so obviously a (possibly unjustified) complaint that they
had been mistreated because of race that charging them with this seems
to have been an inappropriate (and possibly motivated by a desire for
racist propaganda) charge that they deserved to be acquitted. But I
agree they were very lucky indeed not to to have been found guilty of something.
Ob legal - does the person suffering damage have to make a complaint
before people can be charged with criminal damage?
On 18 Feb 2025 at 17:51:32 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are
socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
I am sure your advice is well-meaning but I can only see the flaws in it.
You have sympathy for refugees and believe our nation should extend a
helping hand to them? No, don't trust your own opinions or the opinions
of your friends. Do some research online to discover the
opinions/reactions of "women in general" and you may well discover that
the UK is full up, that refugees are devious economic migrants, that
many of them are rapists or child abusers, and that really this is the
opinion that everyone should now share.
You think that the Covid vaccines are a good thing? Don't be a mug. Most
people who have read books and studied medicine will tell you that the
vaccines cause more deaths than Covid itself.
The question I was addressing was how to *discover* a particular group's feelings. I don't think I committed myself to adopting them in whole or in part. Though if the group is a protected, and indeed oppressed, group
then it may be necessary to take their views into account, even if one doesn't approve of said views.
On 2025-02-18, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 08:18, Owen Rees wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
While women were *overwhelmingly under-represented* in high-level
work such as cryptanalysis, they were employed in large numbers in
other important areas, including as operators of cryptographic and
communications machinery,
unquote:
Just as later on, many women were employed changing reels, feeding
punched cards or sat at consoles flippin switches and operating
keyboards in commercial installations; as that sort of activity was
largely regarded as women's work.
Apart from Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper you have yet to name one
single female computer pioneer who anyone will have previously
heard of.
Dominated by women - doing all the donkey work.
As per usual.
Margaret Hamilton has been in the news recently.
There is also the issue that men tend to be named and recognised for
significant work even if the breakthrough was made by a woman in any
scientific or technological area. That tends to bias the “previously >>>> heard of” towards men.
Note also that the women people have heard of are not token women named >>>> just to show that women were involved. They are the few whose ground
breaking work makes them difficult to ignore and whose work cannot be
attributed to a male colleague.
How do you know?
I have no doubt that, at this moment, people are digging into history
to find significant homosexuals, transexuals, even redheads (perhaps).
I do not have to do any digging to name Alan Turing after whom an
award has been named.
I do not have to do any digging to name Sophie Wilson CBE, co-creator
of the BBC Micro and the designer of the instruction set for the ARM processor, as used in the vast majority of mobile phones worldwide.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:vp2hl6$1q039$1@dont-email.me...
On 18/02/2025 13:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vp1sbq$1m9mr$1@dont-email.me...
The fundamental question is whether we *want* people to be able to claim they have
somehow changed sex, rather than are just transvestites or drag queens (which most
people wouldn't mind).
The further question then surely, is how we could possibly *prevent* people from
claiming they had somehow changed sex.
No more nor less than we could possibly prevent other people from claiiming they
were able to play to play the bagpipes.
People can claim they come from Venus, but we don't have to indulge them, or call them
by their Venusian (Venereal?) names.
Much the same goes for pop singers.
We could, if we wanted to, insist on referring to Marie McDonald McLaughlinLawrie.
The fact that nobodyt else would have a clue as to who we were referring to would be their problem, not ours.
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you,
a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that
I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction
until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who
are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want
to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are
socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support
the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men
want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine
doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman
they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think
might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of
transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on who
the man is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might give the answer they thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse women who
speak out on the subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
My current opinion is that transgender rights activists may be harming
the interests of those who are genuinely transgender in the way that many activists harm the interests of those they claim to represent.
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man, >>>> told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men want a straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman they are talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think might be the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
Ob legal - does the person suffering damage have to make a complaint before >people can be charged with criminal damage?
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men about >> all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, but what is
running through their own minds instead. So I would add - tell the men to >> stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think
you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are
socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on who the man
is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might give the answer they >> thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse women who speak out on the
subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men about >> all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, but what is
running through their own minds instead. So I would add - tell the men to >> stop thinking and just really listen.
The biggest problem of all is the false belief that men don't understand women's
concerns or vice versa, which then enlarges into a belief that if you don't have
black people in Parliament the laws won't take their views into consideration,
and likewise gay people, disabled people, young people (let's have lots of MPs
in their 20s because only they really understand the concerns of young people,
etc).
We've had quite enough of "stop thinking and just really listen" - it's how Brexit won the referendum.
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, >>>>>> a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that >>>>>> I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction
until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who
are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want
to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are
socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support
the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men
want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine
doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman
they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think
might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of
transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on who
the man is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might give the
answer they thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse women who
speak out on the subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
The biggest problem of all is the false belief that men don't understand women's concerns or vice versa, which then enlarges into a belief that
if you don't have black people in Parliament the laws won't take their
views into consideration, and likewise gay people, disabled people,
young people (let's have lots of MPs in their 20s because only they
really understand the concerns of young people, etc).
We've had quite enough of "stop thinking and just really listen" - it's
how Brexit won the referendum.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:11:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, >>>>>>> a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that >>>>>>> I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction
until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who
are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want >>>> to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are >>>> socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support >>>> the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men
want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine
doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman
they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think
might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of
transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on who
the man is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might give the
answer they thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse women who
speak out on the subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
The biggest problem of all is the false belief that men don't understand
women's concerns or vice versa, which then enlarges into a belief that
if you don't have black people in Parliament the laws won't take their
views into consideration, and likewise gay people, disabled people,
young people (let's have lots of MPs in their 20s because only they
really understand the concerns of young people, etc).
We've had quite enough of "stop thinking and just really listen" - it's
how Brexit won the referendum.
That is a fascinating reversal of what kat said. She said that you should "stop thinking and just really listen" in order to *find out what her views were*. Not in order to form your own views! You seem to conflate the two processes. If so, that might explain why you think you know what everyone else's needs are.
On 19/02/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com>
wrote:
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that
you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing
that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction
until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who
are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who
want to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are >>>> socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and
support the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if
men want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine
doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman
they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think
might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of
transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on
who the man is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might
give the answer they thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse
women who speak out on the subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is
said, but what is running through their own minds instead. So I
would add - tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
The biggest problem of all is the false belief that men don't
understand women's concerns or vice versa, which then enlarges into a
belief that if you don't have black people in Parliament the laws
won't take their views into consideration, and likewise gay people,
disabled people, young people (let's have lots of MPs in their 20s
because only they really understand the concerns of young people, etc).
A quick straw poll - my husband and his mates - says men do not
understand women at all. They say it, not us wives!
We've had quite enough of "stop thinking and just really listen" -
it's how Brexit won the referendum.
Brexit won because people didn't listen. Not because people did.
On 19/02/2025 11:47, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is
said, but what is running through their own minds instead. So I
would add - tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
Oh, I do. I have little choice here, and have been pleasantly surprised
by some.
On 19/02/2025 12:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:11:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, >>>>>>>> a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that >>>>>>>> I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they
wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge >>>>>>> transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction
until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who >>>>>> are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want >>>>> to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are >>>>> socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support >>>>> the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men >>>>> want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine >>>>> doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman
they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think >>>>> might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of
transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on who >>>> the man is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might give the >>>> answer they thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse women who
speak out on the subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
The biggest problem of all is the false belief that men don't understand >>> women's concerns or vice versa, which then enlarges into a belief that
if you don't have black people in Parliament the laws won't take their
views into consideration, and likewise gay people, disabled people,
young people (let's have lots of MPs in their 20s because only they
really understand the concerns of young people, etc).
We've had quite enough of "stop thinking and just really listen" - it's
how Brexit won the referendum.
That is a fascinating reversal of what kat said. She said that you should
"stop thinking and just really listen" in order to *find out what her views >> were*. Not in order to form your own views! You seem to conflate the two
processes. If so, that might explain why you think you know what everyone
else's needs are.
I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather selective personal poll of women that you know. And with the caveat that
you believe from your personal experience that it is easy to intimidate
your women into saying what they think you want to hear, so it is
necessary to coax them into saying what they really believe.
I'm just sorry that you've got this problem, which actually might be
unique to you.
On 19/02/2025 11:56, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:47, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is
said, but what is running through their own minds instead. So I
would add - tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
Oh, I do. I have little choice here, and have been pleasantly surprised
by some.
That's lovely.
Never underestimate the value of a woman's compliment in any discourse between men and women. It is often possible to change minds that way.
Trans women lack that innate skill, though. It would probably be
necessary to implant an extra chip.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree
on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups*
of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are
clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from
that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans
people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:26:22 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:11:29 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, >>>>>>>>> a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that >>>>>>>>> I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they >>>>>>>> wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge >>>>>>>> transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction >>>>>>>> until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who >>>>>>> are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want >>>>>> to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are >>>>>> socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support >>>>>> the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men >>>>>> want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine >>>>>> doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman >>>>>> they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think >>>>>> might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of
transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on who >>>>> the man is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might give the >>>>> answer they thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse women who >>>>> speak out on the subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
The biggest problem of all is the false belief that men don't understand >>>> women's concerns or vice versa, which then enlarges into a belief that >>>> if you don't have black people in Parliament the laws won't take their >>>> views into consideration, and likewise gay people, disabled people,
young people (let's have lots of MPs in their 20s because only they
really understand the concerns of young people, etc).
We've had quite enough of "stop thinking and just really listen" - it's >>>> how Brexit won the referendum.
That is a fascinating reversal of what kat said. She said that you should >>> "stop thinking and just really listen" in order to *find out what her views >>> were*. Not in order to form your own views! You seem to conflate the two >>> processes. If so, that might explain why you think you know what everyone >>> else's needs are.
I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
selective personal poll of women that you know. And with the caveat that
you believe from your personal experience that it is easy to intimidate
your women into saying what they think you want to hear, so it is
necessary to coax them into saying what they really believe.
I'm just sorry that you've got this problem, which actually might be
unique to you.
Just for the record, because I like to spot rhetorical devices and attempts to
distort other people's views, I did not at any point claim to "have a reliable
insight
into what women think". What I said was that I had heard what a significant number of women think.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:28:07 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:56, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:47, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is
said, but what is running through their own minds instead. So I
would add - tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
Oh, I do. I have little choice here, and have been pleasantly surprised >>> by some.
That's lovely.
Never underestimate the value of a woman's compliment in any discourse
between men and women. It is often possible to change minds that way.
Trans women lack that innate skill, though. It would probably be
necessary to implant an extra chip.
I thought "trans women are women" though? You seem to have some doubt over that.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 13:34:56 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree
on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups*
of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are
clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from
that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans
people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
I entirely agree with this, especially as far as the position of vulnerable individuals goes. But it is entirely possible for trans women (especially but not exclusively those who don't have any surgical or medical transition) to simultaneously be vulnerable individuals and be part of the group of men to which women are vulnerable. This gives the trans women responsibilities as well as rights. And I think this is beautifully illustrated by the statement of the trans women doctor in the Fife ET case that if a woman asked for intimate care by a female he would immediately give such care until or unless she smelled a rat and complained.
Just for the record, because I like to spot rhetorical devices and attempts to
distort other people's views, I did not at any point claim to "have a reliable
insight
into what women think". What I said was that I had heard what a significant number of women think.
On 19/02/2025 12:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:28:07 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:56, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:47, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is >>>>>> said, but what is running through their own minds instead. So I
would add - tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
Oh, I do. I have little choice here, and have been pleasantly surprised >>>> by some.
That's lovely.
Never underestimate the value of a woman's compliment in any discourse
between men and women. It is often possible to change minds that way.
Trans women lack that innate skill, though. It would probably be
necessary to implant an extra chip.
I thought "trans women are women" though? You seem to have some doubt over >> that.
I thought most people would agree that trans women or trans men are a
social construct. There may be some people who believe that you can
literally be a woman in a man's body. I don't happen to accept that
belief but I'm not a scientist or a doctor. There was a time long ago
when people who wanted to change to the other sex were deemed to be
mentally ill. That particular theory has been abandoned by the medical establishment. What I find unreasonable is to say that biologically you
can't change sex and therefore you should not be allowed to live your
life as a woman after you were born a man. The belief that you should be straightjacketed into a male role or a female role is akin to religious fundamentalism and causes needless and avoidable distress. I guess if
Eddie Izard or Grayson Perry were to visit Iran they would probably be arrested and prosecuted.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 15:07:49 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:28:07 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 19/02/2025 11:56, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:47, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is >>>>>>> said, but what is running through their own minds instead. So I >>>>>>> would add - tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen. >>>>>>Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
Oh, I do. I have little choice here, and have been pleasantly surprised >>>>> by some.
That's lovely.
Never underestimate the value of a woman's compliment in any discourse >>>> between men and women. It is often possible to change minds that way.
Trans women lack that innate skill, though. It would probably be
necessary to implant an extra chip.
I thought "trans women are women" though? You seem to have some doubt over >>> that.
I thought most people would agree that trans women or trans men are a
social construct. There may be some people who believe that you can
literally be a woman in a man's body. I don't happen to accept that
belief but I'm not a scientist or a doctor. There was a time long ago
when people who wanted to change to the other sex were deemed to be
mentally ill. That particular theory has been abandoned by the medical
establishment. What I find unreasonable is to say that biologically you
can't change sex and therefore you should not be allowed to live your
life as a woman after you were born a man. The belief that you should be
straightjacketed into a male role or a female role is akin to religious
fundamentalism and causes needless and avoidable distress. I guess if
Eddie Izard or Grayson Perry were to visit Iran they would probably be
arrested and prosecuted.
I absolutely agree with you. But I want to say that the GRA was misconceived. They are not morally entitled to present themselves as women in some circumstances involving biological women. Some women asking to be treated for intimate care by a female may be shocked to find that they are treated by an intact male with a GRC. In the case of some strands of Judaism or Islam at least, they may regard it as a sinful and forbidden act. Religion as you know is another protected characteristic. I again quote the doctor in the recent tribunal case. I quote him not because he is clearly mad, but because he is representative of at least one widely held view. Not only did he say that he would treat a woman who had asked for exclusively female care without telling her his status, but he also declared, several times under cross examination on
oath, that he was "a biological woman", despite the fact that it was accepted that his body was that of a normal, virile male. And indeed that he has a female wife.
On 18/02/2025 19:04, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vp2hl6$1q039$1@dont-email.me...
On 18/02/2025 13:03, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vp1sbq$1m9mr$1@dont-email.me...
The fundamental question is whether we *want* people to be able to claim they have
somehow changed sex, rather than are just transvestites or drag queens (which most
people wouldn't mind).
The further question then surely, is how we could possibly *prevent* people from
claiming they had somehow changed sex.
No more nor less than we could possibly prevent other people from claiiming they
were able to play to play the bagpipes.
People can claim they come from Venus, but we don't have to indulge them, or call
them
by their Venusian (Venereal?) names.
Much the same goes for pop singers.
We could, if we wanted to, insist on referring to Marie McDonald McLaughlinLawrie.
The fact that nobodyt else would have a clue as to who we were referring to >> would be their problem, not ours.
Not quite nobody. Must be showing my age though.
On 19/02/2025 15:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 15:07:49 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 12:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:28:07 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 19/02/2025 11:56, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:47, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is >>>>>>>> said, but what is running through their own minds instead. So I >>>>>>>> would add - tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen. >>>>>>>Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men. >>>>>>>
Oh, I do. I have little choice here, and have been pleasantly surprised >>>>>> by some.
That's lovely.
Never underestimate the value of a woman's compliment in any discourse >>>>> between men and women. It is often possible to change minds that way. >>>>> Trans women lack that innate skill, though. It would probably be
necessary to implant an extra chip.
I thought "trans women are women" though? You seem to have some doubt over >>>> that.
I thought most people would agree that trans women or trans men are a
social construct. There may be some people who believe that you can
literally be a woman in a man's body. I don't happen to accept that
belief but I'm not a scientist or a doctor. There was a time long ago
when people who wanted to change to the other sex were deemed to be
mentally ill. That particular theory has been abandoned by the medical
establishment. What I find unreasonable is to say that biologically you
can't change sex and therefore you should not be allowed to live your
life as a woman after you were born a man. The belief that you should be >>> straightjacketed into a male role or a female role is akin to religious
fundamentalism and causes needless and avoidable distress. I guess if
Eddie Izard or Grayson Perry were to visit Iran they would probably be
arrested and prosecuted.
I absolutely agree with you. But I want to say that the GRA was misconceived.
They are not morally entitled to present themselves as women in some
circumstances involving biological women. Some women asking to be treated for
intimate care by a female may be shocked to find that they are treated by an >> intact male with a GRC. In the case of some strands of Judaism or Islam at >> least, they may regard it as a sinful and forbidden act. Religion as you know
is another protected characteristic. I again quote the doctor in the recent >> tribunal case. I quote him not because he is clearly mad, but because he is >> representative of at least one widely held view. Not only did he say that he >> would treat a woman who had asked for exclusively female care without telling
her his status, but he also declared, several times under cross examination on
oath, that he was "a biological woman", despite the fact that it was accepted
that his body was that of a normal, virile male. And indeed that he has a
female wife.
If he said he was a biological woman then it does seem an odd thing to
say but I don't know if the outcome of the case will turn on that.
I think we can all look forward to the outcome of the case, which by the
look of it will take several months to reach a final judgment. And
whatever the outcome there may well be lobbying for changes to the law
which will perhaps involve deciding whether religious scruples should outweigh the rights of transgender people.
And indeed that he has a female wife.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 15:52:26 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I think we can all look forward to the outcome of the case, which by the
look of it will take several months to reach a final judgment. And
whatever the outcome there may well be lobbying for changes to the law
which will perhaps involve deciding whether religious scruples should
outweigh the rights of transgender people.
And indeed whether the rights of women (another protected group, as are men of
course) should outweigh the rights of transgender people.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:54:39 +0000, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge
transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are
socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on who the man
is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might give the answer they >> thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse women who speak out on the
subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men about all
sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, but what is >> running through their own minds instead. So I would add - tell the men to stop
thinking and just really listen.
"None so deaf as those that will not hear."
Attrib Mathew Henry
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
And indeed that he has a female wife.
Quite apart from the trans issues, I'm honestly rather bemused that
you keep implying that having a wife implies that a person is a man.
You are aware that non-heterosexual people exist, yes?
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have
those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going
to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both
sides.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 17:36:04 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
And indeed that he has a female wife.
Quite apart from the trans issues, I'm honestly rather bemused that
you keep implying that having a wife implies that a person is a man.
You are aware that non-heterosexual people exist, yes?
Without wishing to be un-genteel, it is what he may do with his wife,
as an intact male, that I can't help thinking is inconsistent with
most people's concept of a woman. Indeed my understanding is that such
people often claim to be lesbians. Which is obviously, in itself, fine.
On 2025-02-19, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
My current opinion is that transgender rights activists may be harming
the interests of those who are genuinely transgender in the way that many
activists harm the interests of those they claim to represent.
The fact you call them "transgender rights activists" is a bit of a
giveaway of the direction you are coming at this from, whether you
realise it or not.
I have two opinions on the idea you're espousing. One is that, to
a significant extent, the activities that you think are harming the
rights of trans people may well simply not be happening. There is
a great deal of very well-funded false narrative being put about by
the gender critical / far right movements, and if you read a headline
such as "trans rights activists demand XYZ" you may well find that in
fact no activists are demanding XYZ at all, or that there is a great
deal of nuance that is being left out of the story. Saying that such >headlines are the fault of activists is victim-blaming.
The other is that in any fight like this there tends to be two schools
of progressive thought - one that change can be achieved through gradual >persuasion of the establishment, and that if everyone just behaves very >nicely and doesn't rock the boat or scare the horses then eventually
people will come around. And the other that the establishment doesn't
give up anything unless it is forced to, that people are suffering now,
and that respectability politics is bullshit. Stonewall vs OutRage!,
for example. And my thoughts on that are essentially that neither side
is wrong and that there is room for both approaches simultaneously.
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have
nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming
acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have
those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going
to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get
everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both
sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is
to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth. And no that isn't hyperbole, even if
the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 10:49:44 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in ><slrnvrbdq8.27v.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu>:
On 2025-02-19, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
My current opinion is that transgender rights activists may be harming
the interests of those who are genuinely transgender in the way that many >>> activists harm the interests of those they claim to represent.
The fact you call them "transgender rights activists" is a bit of a >>giveaway of the direction you are coming at this from, whether you
realise it or not.
I have two opinions on the idea you're espousing. One is that, to
a significant extent, the activities that you think are harming the
rights of trans people may well simply not be happening. There is
a great deal of very well-funded false narrative being put about by
the gender critical / far right movements, and if you read a headline
such as "trans rights activists demand XYZ" you may well find that in
fact no activists are demanding XYZ at all, or that there is a great
deal of nuance that is being left out of the story. Saying that such >>headlines are the fault of activists is victim-blaming.
Do you believe that the news reports about rape and death threats made
to JK Rowling and the police involvment in investigating them are false?
If they are true it tends to undermine the idea that women have nothing
to fear from the transgender community.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 13:34:56 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree
on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups*
of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are
clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from
that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans
people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
I entirely agree with this, especially as far as the position of
vulnerable individuals goes. But it is entirely possible for trans
women (especially but not exclusively those who don't have any
surgical or medical transition) to simultaneously be vulnerable
individuals and be part of the group of men to which women are
vulnerable. This gives the trans women responsibilities as well as
rights. And I think this is beautifully illustrated by the statement
of the trans women doctor in the Fife ET case that if a woman asked
for intimate care by a female he would immediately give such care
until or unless she smelled a rat and complained.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 22:06:57 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have
nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming
acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have
those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going
to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get
everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both
sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is
to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth. And no that isn't hyperbole, even if
the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
And, as someone just pointed out, some of their supporters want to wipe JK Rowling off the face of the earth. Which is not a reasonable point of view.
I'm going to hazard a guess that both groups of extremists are a small, deranged minority.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is
to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth. And no that isn't hyperbole, even if
the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:06:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>>>is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have
nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming
acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have
those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going
to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get
everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both
sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is
to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth.
I don't know anybody who would fit into that category. That's not to
say they don't exist, there are irrational extremists in every society
and, unfortunately, today's society gives such people the opportunity
to promote their views no matter how abhorrent they are.
What we should *not* do is fall into the trap of not doing the right
thing because vile extremists might like it.
And no that isn't hyperbole, even if the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 22:06:57 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have
nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming
acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have
those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going
to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get
everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both
sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is
to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth. And no that isn't hyperbole, even if
the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
And, as someone just pointed out, some of their supporters want to
wipe JK Rowling off the face of the earth. Which is not a reasonable
point of view.
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:26:22 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
selective personal poll of women that you know.
Can you explain why you think that applies to Roger's arguments but
not to your arguments?
And with the caveat that
you believe from your personal experience that it is easy to intimidate
your women into saying what they think you want to hear, so it is
necessary to coax them into saying what they really believe.
I'm just sorry that you've got this problem, which actually might be
unique to you.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:19:54 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:06:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>>>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and >>>>>>> society that might well be important advice.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men. >>>>>>>
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>>>>>is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>>>that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>>>women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have >>>>> nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming >>>>> acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have >>>>> those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going >>>>> to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get >>>>> everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both >>>>> sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is >>>>to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth.
I don't know anybody who would fit into that category. That's not to
say they don't exist, there are irrational extremists in every society
and, unfortunately, today's society gives such people the opportunity
to promote their views no matter how abhorrent they are.
It's the standard GC position.
Assuming that you mean the Gender Critical philosophy, who on its
behalf has stated that trans people should be wiped off the face of
the earth?
What we should *not* do is fall into the trap of not doing the right
thing because vile extremists might like it.
I can't work out what on earth you're saying there. What is the
"right thing" that we shouldn't not do?
The right thing we *should do* is seek compromise where both sides
give and take. You seem to be suggesting that trans people shouldn't
be expected to make any compromise.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:44:00 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 20/02/2025 09:29, Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 12:26:22 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
I know what her views are. I think I know what your views are. What
fascinates me is the way you believe that you have a reliable insight
into what women think and believe, based on what seems to be a rather
selective personal poll of women that you know.
Can you explain why you think that applies to Roger's arguments but
not to your arguments?
Yes, I could explain, if I could be bothered to repeat myself for the
benefit of those who haven't followed the discussion properly.
With over 300 posts on this thread, I don't claim to have read every
one and have no appetite for ploughing through them. If I ask you
nicely, would you mind pointing me to where you explained it?
On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 09:19:54 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-20, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:06:57 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and >>>>>>>> society that might well be important advice.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men. >>>>>>>>
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>>>> women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets >>>>>> applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people >>>>>> have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people >>>>>> fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have >>>>>> nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that. >>>>>> FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming >>>>>> acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also >>>>>> understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have >>>>>> those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going >>>>>> to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get >>>>>> everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both >>>>>> sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is >>>>> to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth.
I don't know anybody who would fit into that category. That's not to
say they don't exist, there are irrational extremists in every society >>>> and, unfortunately, today's society gives such people the opportunity
to promote their views no matter how abhorrent they are.
It's the standard GC position.
Assuming that you mean the Gender Critical philosophy, who on its
behalf has stated that trans people should be wiped off the face of
the earth?
Pretty much all the journalists and prominent spokespeople. Like I
already said, they don't say it out-right of course. They just say
things which sound less extreme - for example, demanding biological
sex rules regarding toilets, which would effectively bar trans people
from public spaces and workplaces. Or that "irreversible surgery" on
children should be banned, when in fact it already doesn't happen and
what they actually mean is all treatment of trans children should be
banned except for conversion therapy, and by "children" they apparently
mean "adults up to the age of 25".
What we should *not* do is fall into the trap of not doing the right
thing because vile extremists might like it.
I can't work out what on earth you're saying there. What is the
"right thing" that we shouldn't not do?
The right thing we *should do* is seek compromise where both sides
give and take. You seem to be suggesting that trans people shouldn't
be expected to make any compromise.
I'm saying that there is very little room for them to make any
compromise, because their demands are already so basic. Where do
you think they should fall back to if they have to "compromise"
on "we should be allowed to exist with basic dignity in society"?
I thought most people would agree that trans women or trans men are a
social construct. There may be some people who believe that you can
literally be a woman in a man's body. I don't happen to accept that
belief but I'm not a scientist or a doctor.
Do you believe that the news reports about rape and death threats made
to JK Rowling and the police involvment in investigating them are false?
If they are true it tends to undermine the idea that women have nothing
to fear from the transgender community.
On 20 Feb 2025 at 12:20:11 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
I'm saying that there is very little room for them to make any
compromise, because their demands are already so basic. Where do
you think they should fall back to if they have to "compromise"
on "we should be allowed to exist with basic dignity in society"?
There could be (and are in gyms so I'm told, can't say I've ever been
to one) gender neutral changing rooms, or single person changing
rooms. A reasonable adjustment. Why are they so desperate for access
to the women's changing rooms?
On 2025-02-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 12:20:11 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
I'm saying that there is very little room for them to make any
compromise, because their demands are already so basic. Where do
you think they should fall back to if they have to "compromise"
on "we should be allowed to exist with basic dignity in society"?
There could be (and are in gyms so I'm told, can't say I've ever been
to one) gender neutral changing rooms, or single person changing
rooms. A reasonable adjustment. Why are they so desperate for access
to the women's changing rooms?
(a) they're women, so that's the right room for them to use
(b) gender neutral rooms aren't available 90%+ of the time
(c) "separate but equal" is always a lie
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 22:12:02 +0000, Owen Rees <orees@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do you believe that the news reports about rape and death threats made
to JK Rowling and the police involvment in investigating them are false?
If they are true it tends to undermine the idea that women have nothing
to fear from the transgender community.
I don't want to minimise the threats made to Rowling and others. They are, I am certain, both very real and very distressing, and reflect a genuine potential threat.
However, celebrities, in particular (and, unfortunately, women, even more so), are routinely subject to abuse via social media and other electronic communications. Three England footballers got death threats simply for missing penalties at the end of the Euro 2020 final. Nobody has suggested that this means that footballers have something to fear from the England fan community. Rather, most people have correctly identified it as precisely
what it is: racism. The overt provocation (missing a key penalty) is simply an excuse, the people making those threats would very much like to make them anyway and are merely looking for a convenient opportunity.
In the same way, the threats against Rowling and other gender-critical commentors are almost entirely motivated by simple misogyny. The threats are made by people who would make those threats anyway, and, as with the racists attacking black England fotballers, are merely using her gender-critical stance as a convenient hook on which to hang them.
Now, that's not to say that there are no transwomen who were misogynists before transitioning and remained misogynists after doing so. It would, I think, be statistically implausible to claim there are not. But the question here is not whether there are any, but rather whether they are more
prevalent among the trans community than the public at large. And I haven't seen any evidence which suggests that they are.
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 22:06:57 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and >>>>>> society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>>>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>> women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have >>>> nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming
acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have >>>> those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going
to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get
everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both
sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is
to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth. And no that isn't hyperbole, even if
the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
And, as someone just pointed out, some of their supporters want to
wipe JK Rowling off the face of the earth. Which is not a reasonable
point of view.
I'm talking about the standard positions of prominent activists,
not things random anonymous individuals may have said.
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one
of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A
rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one
of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A
rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not), this is something of a canard. There is a character in the book who is a serial killer[1] and, in the course of his serial killings, used multiple disguises including dressing as a woman. But there's no suggestion in the book that he was in any sense transgender, or even intending to pass himself off as a woman in any detail. It was just using a disguise that would, at
the time, suit his purpose, not an expression of acquired gender. That's broadly equivalent to BBC journalist John Simpson wearing a burqa in order
to enter Afghanistan in 2001. Although of course Simpson was never a murderer.
snip spoiler
On 20 Feb 2025 at 22:27:53 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one >>> of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A
rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not), >> this is something of a canard. There is a character in the book who is a
serial killer[1] and, in the course of his serial killings, used multiple
disguises including dressing as a woman. But there's no suggestion in the
book that he was in any sense transgender, or even intending to pass himself >> off as a woman in any detail. It was just using a disguise that would, at
the time, suit his purpose, not an expression of acquired gender. That's
broadly equivalent to BBC journalist John Simpson wearing a burqa in order >> to enter Afghanistan in 2001. Although of course Simpson was never a
murderer.
snip spoiler
It may be that some activists feel that even drawing attention to the
fact that wearing women's clothing might enable a man to get away with
things he might others have to desist from is encouraging thoughtcrime.
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one
of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A >>rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not), this is something of a canard.
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message news:8t9frj5jv6c3ji5is94ei5r1lu42cmg4nl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one >>> of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A
rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not), >> this is something of a canard.
A canard indeed.
The book in question being "Troubled Blood" the fifth in the Cormoran Strike series, published in 2020. The book became *a bestseller^ and won *the Crime and
Thriller Book of the Year Award^ at the British Book Awards. The novel has been adapted as part of the Strike television series.
Altogether Rowling has now written seven Comoran Strike novels many best sellers
which also gives the lie to those who describe her as merely a "childrens' author" She has also won the Laurence Olivier and Tony Awards for her plays.
On 20 Feb 2025 at 22:27:53 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one >>> of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A
rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not), >> this is something of a canard. There is a character in the book who is a
serial killer[1] and, in the course of his serial killings, used multiple
disguises including dressing as a woman. But there's no suggestion in the
book that he was in any sense transgender, or even intending to pass himself >> off as a woman in any detail. It was just using a disguise that would, at
the time, suit his purpose, not an expression of acquired gender. That's
broadly equivalent to BBC journalist John Simpson wearing a burqa in order >> to enter Afghanistan in 2001. Although of course Simpson was never a
murderer.
snip spoiler
It may be that some activists feel that even drawing attention to the fact that wearing women's clothing might enable a man to get away with things he might others have to desist from is encouraging thoughtcrime.
On 21/02/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8t9frj5jv6c3ji5is94ei5r1lu42cmg4nl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one >>>> of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A >>>> rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not),
this is something of a canard.
A canard indeed.
The book in question being "Troubled Blood" the fifth in the Cormoran Strike >> series, published in 2020. The book became *a bestseller^ and won *the Crime and
Thriller Book of the Year Award^ at the British Book Awards. The novel has >> been adapted as part of the Strike television series.
Altogether Rowling has now written seven Comoran Strike novels many best sellers
which also gives the lie to those who describe her as merely a "childrens' >> author" She has also won the Laurence Olivier and Tony Awards for her plays.
You can tell what a fine author Rowling is by the fact that most new authors are eased
out of the limelight so that Rowling's books can have pride of place in most bookshops,
spread over multiple tables. She is the UK equivalent of the Disney corporation.
On 20/02/2025 23:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Feb 2025 at 22:27:53 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one >>>> of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A >>>> rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not),
this is something of a canard. There is a character in the book who is a >>> serial killer[1] and, in the course of his serial killings, used multiple >>> disguises including dressing as a woman. But there's no suggestion in the >>> book that he was in any sense transgender, or even intending to pass himself
off as a woman in any detail. It was just using a disguise that would, at >>> the time, suit his purpose, not an expression of acquired gender. That's >>> broadly equivalent to BBC journalist John Simpson wearing a burqa in order >>> to enter Afghanistan in 2001. Although of course Simpson was never a
murderer.
snip spoiler
It may be that some activists feel that even drawing attention to the fact >> that wearing women's clothing might enable a man to get away with things he >> might others have to desist from is encouraging thoughtcrime.
I doubt if wearing women's clothing has often enabled men to commit
crimes, but it might well make them conspicuous on security cameras and
I don't think the police would be naive enough to say "it's a woman so there's no way she could have committed that crime".
However, here's a more worrying report.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/doctors-wes-streeting-general-medical-council-the-daily-telegraph-b1212411.html
quote
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has asked for “reassurances” from the General Medical Council (GMC) after it was reported that doctors who
changed gender could have their disciplinary records erased.
The Daily Telegraph reported that the GMC had confirmed doctors who
change their gender identity were issued with a new registration and GMC number, with no links to their previous registration on the watchdog’s public register.
unquote
Let's not assume this is about doctors who are sexual predators. It may
be that doctors who have committed major acts of negligence,
catastrophic mistakes in surgery or in prescribing, could have that
history expunged from their records if they change gender. If so, one
wonders who could have thought that was a good system. But this isn't a reason to demonise trans clinicians or to assume that they deliberately change gender to escape from a bad reputation.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m1r0rkF10tiU2@mid.individual.net...
On 21/02/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8t9frj5jv6c3ji5is94ei5r1lu42cmg4nl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which >>>>> she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one >>>>> of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A >>>>> rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not),
this is something of a canard.
A canard indeed.
The book in question being "Troubled Blood" the fifth in the Cormoran Strike
series, published in 2020. The book became *a bestseller^ and won *the Crime and
Thriller Book of the Year Award^ at the British Book Awards. The novel has >>> been adapted as part of the Strike television series.
Altogether Rowling has now written seven Comoran Strike novels many best sellers
which also gives the lie to those who describe her as merely a "childrens' >>> author" She has also won the Laurence Olivier and Tony Awards for her plays.
You can tell what a fine author Rowling is by the fact that most new authors are eased
out of the limelight so that Rowling's books can have pride of place in most bookshops,
spread over multiple tables. She is the UK equivalent of the Disney corporation.
Make your mind up.
She was the UK equivalent of Elon Musk only a few posts ago.
And her outstanding success as a crime author is not only here in the UK
" As of February 2024, the series has sold more than 20 million copies worldwide
and was published in more than 50 countries, being translated into 43 languages.[3] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormoran_Strike
To repeat
"20 million copies" "50 countries" " translated into 43 languages"
Your turn !
I doubt if wearing women's clothing has often enabled men to commit
crimes, but it might well make them conspicuous on security cameras and
I don't think the police would be naive enough to say "it's a woman so there's no way she could have committed that crime".
However, here's a more worrying report.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/doctors-wes-streeting-general-medical-council-the-daily-telegraph-b1212411.html
quote
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has asked for “reassurances” from the General Medical Council (GMC) after it was reported that doctors who
changed gender could have their disciplinary records erased.
The Daily Telegraph reported that the GMC had confirmed doctors who
change their gender identity were issued with a new registration and GMC number, with no links to their previous registration on the watchdog’s public register.
unquote
Let's not assume this is about doctors who are sexual predators. It may
be that doctors who have committed major acts of negligence,
catastrophic mistakes in surgery or in prescribing, could have that
history expunged from their records if they change gender. If so, one
wonders who could have thought that was a good system. But this isn't a reason to demonise trans clinicians or to assume that they deliberately change gender to escape from a bad reputation.
I am also mystified about why she seems to have named her Edinburgh rape crisis service
after a particularly egregious Russian secret policeman.
On 21/02/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8t9frj5jv6c3ji5is94ei5r1lu42cmg4nl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which
she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one >>>> of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A >>>> rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not),
this is something of a canard.
A canard indeed.
The book in question being "Troubled Blood" the fifth in the Cormoran Strike >> series, published in 2020. The book became *a bestseller^ and won *the Crime >> and
Thriller Book of the Year Award^ at the British Book Awards. The novel has >> been adapted as part of the Strike television series.
Altogether Rowling has now written seven Comoran Strike novels many best
sellers
which also gives the lie to those who describe her as merely a "childrens' >> author" She has also won the Laurence Olivier and Tony Awards for her plays.
You can tell what a fine author Rowling is by the fact that most new
authors are eased out of the limelight so that Rowling's books can have
pride of place in most bookshops, spread over multiple tables. She is
the UK equivalent of the Disney corporation.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3335764691.a28f8d54@uninhabited.net...
I am also mystified about why she seems to have named her Edinburgh rape
crisis service
after a particularly egregious Russian secret policeman.
And a notorious dyslexic to boot
bb
quote:
The organisation was named for Beira, the Scottish goddess of winter who represents
"female wisdom,
power, and regeneration"
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beira%27s_Place.
On 21 Feb 2025 at 10:44:46 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3335764691.a28f8d54@uninhabited.net...
I am also mystified about why she seems to have named her Edinburgh rape >>> crisis service
after a particularly egregious Russian secret policeman.
And a notorious dyslexic to boot
bb
quote:
The organisation was named for Beira, the Scottish goddess of winter who
represents
"female wisdom,
power, and regeneration"
unquote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beira%27s_Place.
One lives and learns!
On 21 Feb 2025 at 09:55:00 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2025 09:32, billy bookcase wrote:
"Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8t9frj5jv6c3ji5is94ei5r1lu42cmg4nl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 16:57:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Rowling, however, has chosen to make gender-critical statements which >>>>> she must know will be seen as hurtful and provocative. And she wrote one >>>>> of her crime novels with a murderer who is a man dressed as a woman. A >>>>> rather facile plot device which was inevitably seen as an attack on
trans people.
Having read the book (which, I suspect, many of Rowling's critics have not),
this is something of a canard.
A canard indeed.
The book in question being "Troubled Blood" the fifth in the Cormoran Strike
series, published in 2020. The book became *a bestseller^ and won *the Crime
and
Thriller Book of the Year Award^ at the British Book Awards. The novel has >>> been adapted as part of the Strike television series.
Altogether Rowling has now written seven Comoran Strike novels many best >>> sellers
which also gives the lie to those who describe her as merely a "childrens' >>> author" She has also won the Laurence Olivier and Tony Awards for her plays.
You can tell what a fine author Rowling is by the fact that most new
authors are eased out of the limelight so that Rowling's books can have
pride of place in most bookshops, spread over multiple tables. She is
the UK equivalent of the Disney corporation.
I agree with you about the poor literary quality of Rowling's work; and about the hypocrisy of bookselling chains in claiming to serve the interests of readers better than online services; and I am also mystified about why she seems to have named her Edinburgh rape crisis service after a particularly egregious Russian secret policeman.
But I am not sure any of it disqualifies Rowling from saying what she thinks.
It is up to us to decide what weight to put on it. Unlike Musk, no one seems
to want to put her in charge of anything.
Just to promote my war on GRA, the whole structure of the GRC application is based on having started or intending to carry out a programme of surgical and hormonal transition. While I agree this is not a sensible course for the majority of transwomen, it is demanding that they are less than frank about their intentions in order to get a GRC. This is yet another reason to amend the Act radically, and start a national conversation about what privileges it is appropriate to give trans women, and what criteria are fair for a GRC.
On 21/02/2025 10:23, billy bookcase wrote:
She was the UK equivalent of Elon Musk only a few posts ago.
You agree, then? My point is that this very rich lady gets lots of press attention for every statement she makes, every tweet she writes, so her opinions are amplified and are deemed to be important and authoritative.
My point is that this very rich lady gets lots of press attention for every statement
she makes, every tweet she writes, so her opinions are amplified and are deemed to be
important and authoritative.
And her outstanding success as a crime author is not only here in the UK
" As of February 2024, the series has sold more than 20 million copies worldwide
and was published in more than 50 countries, being translated into 43 languages.[3] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormoran_Strike
To repeat
"20 million copies" "50 countries" " translated into 43 languages"
Your turn !
Yes. As they said about Pokemon - gotta catch them all! Seemingly there are children
and doting parents who are determined to obtain the full set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe
it will help your kid get into Oxbridge or at least into one of those posh private
schools with "houses", impressive dining halls and team sports for the gentry.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
My point is that this very rich lady gets lots of press attention for every statement
she makes, every tweet she writes, so her opinions are amplified and are deemed to be
important and authoritative.
And so unlike all the very rich men who down the centuries, the millenia even,
have got lots of arttention for every statement they made, which were deemed to be important and authoritative,
And her outstanding success as a crime author is not only here in the UK >>>
" As of February 2024, the series has sold more than 20 million copies worldwide
and was published in more than 50 countries, being translated into 43 languages.[3] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cormoran_Strike
To repeat
"20 million copies" "50 countries" " translated into 43 languages"
Your turn !
Yes. As they said about Pokemon - gotta catch them all! Seemingly there are children
and doting parents who are determined to obtain the full set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe
it will help your kid get into Oxbridge or at least into one of those posh private
schools with "houses", impressive dining halls and team sports for the gentry.
ER, those figures refer to her * detective stories*.alone.
Not Harry Potter which probably runs into *billions* if not *trillions* of export
earnings
She really does get up your nose in a very big way, doesn't she ?
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Just to promote my war on GRA, the whole structure of the GRC
application is based on having started or intending to carry out a
programme of surgical and hormonal transition. While I agree this is
not a sensible course for the majority of transwomen, it is demanding
that they are less than frank about their intentions in order to get
a GRC. This is yet another reason to amend the Act radically, and
start a national conversation about what privileges it is appropriate
to give trans women, and what criteria are fair for a GRC.
I think you are trying to bring sense and clarity to a situation that has been created that was intended to have neither.
The GRA/GRC thing is yet another manifestation of enforced changes in
society as part of its transformation, by groups unknown, to something
else, overseen by successive governments whose strings are being pulled by said groups.
On 2025-02-21, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I doubt if wearing women's clothing has often enabled men to commit
crimes, but it might well make them conspicuous on security cameras and
I don't think the police would be naive enough to say "it's a woman so
there's no way she could have committed that crime".
Let's not assume this is about doctors who are sexual predators. It may
be that doctors who have committed major acts of negligence,
catastrophic mistakes in surgery or in prescribing, could have that
history expunged from their records if they change gender. If so, one
wonders who could have thought that was a good system. But this isn't a
reason to demonise trans clinicians or to assume that they deliberately
change gender to escape from a bad reputation.
That's very weird. I wonder what happens if a doctor just changes their
name, does that generate a new entry as well, or whether it is only
changing their gender (which is for some reason stored in the register)
that requires creating a new entry, and if so why.
The Telegraph article is here: https://archive.ph/zgiO7 Note that it is
very careful to repeatedly state that there are no links to the previous >register entry visible *on the public website*. This does not, of course, >mean that there are no links between the register entries. There is no
reason to believe that if disciplinary action were to be taken against a >doctor under a new register entry, the disciplinary committee would be >unaware of the record under the old entry.
You can tell what a fine author Rowling is by the fact that most new
authors are eased out of the limelight so that Rowling's books can have
pride of place in most bookshops, spread over multiple tables. She is
the UK equivalent of the Disney corporation.
I suppose the Spice Girls are also the embodiment of girl power.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 12:08:15 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I suppose the Spice Girls are also the embodiment of girl power.
Spice Girls, grandad? It's Taylor Swift who's the embodiment of girl power these days.
Mark
On 2025-02-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
The GRA/GRC thing is yet another manifestation of enforced changes in
society as part of its transformation, by groups unknown, to something
else, overseen by successive governments whose strings are being pulled by >> said groups.
"The GRA was made by the Illuminati" is not a sensible argument.
On 2025-02-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Just to promote my war on GRA, the whole structure of the GRC
application is based on having started or intending to carry out a
programme of surgical and hormonal transition. While I agree this is
not a sensible course for the majority of transwomen, it is demanding
that they are less than frank about their intentions in order to get
a GRC. This is yet another reason to amend the Act radically, and
start a national conversation about what privileges it is appropriate
to give trans women, and what criteria are fair for a GRC.
I think you are trying to bring sense and clarity to a situation that has
been created that was intended to have neither.
The GRA/GRC thing is yet another manifestation of enforced changes in
society as part of its transformation, by groups unknown, to something
else, overseen by successive governments whose strings are being pulled by >> said groups.
"The GRA was made by the Illuminati" is not a sensible argument...
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:41:29 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-21, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I doubt if wearing women's clothing has often enabled men to commit
crimes, but it might well make them conspicuous on security cameras and
I don't think the police would be naive enough to say "it's a woman so
there's no way she could have committed that crime".
Let's not assume this is about doctors who are sexual predators. It may
be that doctors who have committed major acts of negligence,
catastrophic mistakes in surgery or in prescribing, could have that
history expunged from their records if they change gender. If so, one
wonders who could have thought that was a good system. But this isn't a
reason to demonise trans clinicians or to assume that they deliberately
change gender to escape from a bad reputation.
That's very weird. I wonder what happens if a doctor just changes their >>name, does that generate a new entry as well, or whether it is only >>changing their gender (which is for some reason stored in the register) >>that requires creating a new entry, and if so why.
No; it appears to be just a change of gender which triggers a new registration number.
The Telegraph article is here: https://archive.ph/zgiO7 Note that it is >>very careful to repeatedly state that there are no links to the previous >>register entry visible *on the public website*. This does not, of course, >>mean that there are no links between the register entries. There is no >>reason to believe that if disciplinary action were to be taken against a >>doctor under a new register entry, the disciplinary committee would be >>unaware of the record under the old entry.
Indeed, it's not going to be a problem for the GMC when it comes to investigating any complaints against a doctor.
But I don't think that's the real issue here. I can understand why the GMC may feel that they don't want to make it easy for the general public to
abuse transgender doctors, for example by deliberately misgendering or deadnaming them. But I am uneasy that doctors who change gender are allowed the privilege of something that isn't available to other doctors who may
well have an equally compelling reason for changing their name. For example, a doctor who has been the victim of domestic abuse and moves to a different part of the country and changes her name to make it harder for her abuser to track her down.
It would, I think, be acceptable if the GMC had a policy of allowing a new registration on a case by case basis, when a doctor can demonstrate that not issuing a new registration would significantly increase their risk of abuse. Reasons for that would include gender transition as well as domestic
violence and, probably, other scenarios that I haven't thought of. But a blanket policy of always allowing it for doctors who transition gender, but nobody else, seems to me to be demonstrably unreasonable.
If I want to read opinions in the Times about transgender issues in the
law, I want to read the opinions of experienced lawyers, or maybe MPs,
but all such opinions tend to be drowned out by the trumpeted views of
JK Rowling, the children's author with a chip on her shoulder.
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are determined to obtain the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into Oxbridge or at least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive dining halls and team
sports for the gentry.
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 09:55:00 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
You can tell what a fine author Rowling is by the fact that most new
authors are eased out of the limelight so that Rowling's books can have
pride of place in most bookshops, spread over multiple tables. She is
the UK equivalent of the Disney corporation.
No; it's Richard Osman who gets that treatment now. And before both of them it was Dan Brown. None of which tells you anything about the quality of
their work, merely its popularity.
FWIW, my opinion of them is that Osman's books are very clever, very funny and surprisingly moving, Rowling's books are well constructed and intelligently written but could really do with an editor more determined to push back at her tendency to go on at excessive length, and Brown's books are, well, tripe. But who am I to criticise the Great British public's reading preferences.
On 2025-02-21, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Just to promote my war on GRA, the whole structure of the GRC
application is based on having started or intending to carry out a
programme of surgical and hormonal transition. While I agree this is
not a sensible course for the majority of transwomen, it is demanding
that they are less than frank about their intentions in order to get
a GRC. This is yet another reason to amend the Act radically, and
start a national conversation about what privileges it is appropriate
to give trans women, and what criteria are fair for a GRC.
I think you are trying to bring sense and clarity to a situation that has
been created that was intended to have neither.
The GRA/GRC thing is yet another manifestation of enforced changes in
society as part of its transformation, by groups unknown, to something
else, overseen by successive governments whose strings are being pulled by >> said groups.
"The GRA was made by the Illuminati" is not a sensible argument.
On 2025-02-21, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Feb 2025 10:41:29 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-21, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I doubt if wearing women's clothing has often enabled men to commit
crimes, but it might well make them conspicuous on security cameras and >>>> I don't think the police would be naive enough to say "it's a woman so >>>> there's no way she could have committed that crime".
Let's not assume this is about doctors who are sexual predators. It may >>>> be that doctors who have committed major acts of negligence,
catastrophic mistakes in surgery or in prescribing, could have that
history expunged from their records if they change gender. If so, one
wonders who could have thought that was a good system. But this isn't a >>>> reason to demonise trans clinicians or to assume that they deliberately >>>> change gender to escape from a bad reputation.
That's very weird. I wonder what happens if a doctor just changes their
name, does that generate a new entry as well, or whether it is only
changing their gender (which is for some reason stored in the register)
that requires creating a new entry, and if so why.
No; it appears to be just a change of gender which triggers a new
registration number.
The Telegraph article is here: https://archive.ph/zgiO7 Note that it is
very careful to repeatedly state that there are no links to the previous >>> register entry visible *on the public website*. This does not, of course, >>> mean that there are no links between the register entries. There is no
reason to believe that if disciplinary action were to be taken against a >>> doctor under a new register entry, the disciplinary committee would be
unaware of the record under the old entry.
Indeed, it's not going to be a problem for the GMC when it comes to
investigating any complaints against a doctor.
But I don't think that's the real issue here. I can understand why the GMC >> may feel that they don't want to make it easy for the general public to
abuse transgender doctors, for example by deliberately misgendering or
deadnaming them. But I am uneasy that doctors who change gender are allowed >> the privilege of something that isn't available to other doctors who may
well have an equally compelling reason for changing their name. For example, >> a doctor who has been the victim of domestic abuse and moves to a different >> part of the country and changes her name to make it harder for her abuser to >> track her down.
It would, I think, be acceptable if the GMC had a policy of allowing a new >> registration on a case by case basis, when a doctor can demonstrate that not >> issuing a new registration would significantly increase their risk of abuse. >> Reasons for that would include gender transition as well as domestic
violence and, probably, other scenarios that I haven't thought of. But a
blanket policy of always allowing it for doctors who transition gender, but >> nobody else, seems to me to be demonstrably unreasonable.
The publically available information is pretty thin. It's not obvious
why they don't just update the name and gender marker on the existing
record, which would neither "out" the doctor as trans nor give them
special treatment.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are determined to obtain >> the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into Oxbridge or at >> least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive dining halls and >> team
sports for the gentry.
The Todal 2024
[...]
quote:
The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie and the working
class is
that
the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie there is another
unbridgeable
gulf between the 'public' school and the 'private' school. It is quite clear that there
are tens
and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a 'posh' public school
is
wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic world of quad-rangles
and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about it, live mentally in it
for hours
at a stretch. The question is, Who arc these people? Who reads the Gem and Magnet?
[........]
They are generally on sale in the poorest quarters of big towns, and I have known them to
be
read by boys whom one might expect to be completely immune from public-school 'glamour'.
I have seen a young coal miner, for instance, a lad who had already worked a year or two
underground,
eagerly reading the Gem
:unquote
George Orwell "Boys Weeklies" 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Weeklies
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/english/e_boys
bb
On 19/02/2025 11:55, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:11, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
On 18/02/2025 12:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Feb 2025 at 12:22:53 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 17/02/2025 13:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Feb 2025 at 12:25:32 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>
m.
Whatever, the main thing that came out of this, to me, is that you, a man,
told
women what they must do, what they must think. And the thing that I >>>>>>>> think you
did wrong was that. There had to be a better way.
I think perhaps the immediate reaction of most men is that they wouldn't
care
too much of a woman used their changing rooms, so why not indulge >>>>>>> transgenderism? - it does no harm? That was my initial reaction until I made
an effort to find out why women objected.
I think you are right, and I am glad to see that there are men who are taking
the trouble to understand.
While we are on the subject, I would offer some advice to men who want to know
what women think on the subject. Bear in mind that generally women are >>>>> socialised to appease rather than confront, and to nurture and support the men
around them rather than oppose them, as general principles. So if men want a
straight answer, don't give their own opinion first, express genuine doubt and
concern about the problem and wish to see others POV. Ask the woman they are
talking to not for their own views specifically, but what they think might be
the reactions of women in general. On the specific question of transwomen they
might get a more useful answer that way.
Don't know if you agree?
On the whole, yes. There is of course the risk that, depending on who the
man is, and the relationship to the woman, the woman might give the answer >>>> they thought said man would prefer. Given the abuse women who speak out on >>>> the subject receive some may be very wary.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men about
all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, but what
is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - tell the men
to stop thinking and just really listen.
The biggest problem of all is the false belief that men don't understand >>> women's concerns or vice versa, which then enlarges into a belief that if you
don't have black people in Parliament the laws won't take their views into >>> consideration, and likewise gay people, disabled people, young people (let's
have lots of MPs in their 20s because only they really understand the
concerns of young people, etc).
A quick straw poll - my husband and his mates - says men do not understand >> women at all. They say it, not us wives!
You have my sympathy.
Of course, it's a phrase that can be interpreted in all sorts of ways. For instance, most men can't understand why women are so fond of shoes.
We've had quite enough of "stop thinking and just really listen" - it's how >>> Brexit won the referendum.
Brexit won because people didn't listen. Not because people did.
Gove said we've had quite enough of experts. That was one of the killer punches.
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>> On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree
on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups*
of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are
clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from
that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans
people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
On 19/02/2025 22:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 22:06:57 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and >>>>>> society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>>>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>> women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have >>>> nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming
acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have >>>> those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going
to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get
everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both
sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is
to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth. And no that isn't hyperbole, even if
the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
And, as someone just pointed out, some of their supporters want to wipe JK >> Rowling off the face of the earth. Which is not a reasonable point of view. >>
I'm going to hazard a guess that both groups of extremists are a small,
deranged minority.
Unfortunately JK Rowling has become more extremist and her social media posts more provocative, over the years.
Having spoken about her personal experiences and made some very good points, she
seems now to see herself as a flag-bearer for a cause. Obviously I agree that anyone threatening her with violence should be prosecuted. But maybe she should
do that thing that Kat recommended. Just listen. Listen and shut the fuck up for
a bit. And obviously continue writing her second-rate children's stories.
On 19 Feb 2025 at 15:52:26 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 15:37, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 15:07:49 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 19/02/2025 12:41, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 12:28:07 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>>
On 19/02/2025 11:56, kat wrote:
On 19/02/2025 11:47, Max Demian wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is >>>>>>>>> said, but what is running through their own minds instead. So I >>>>>>>>> would add - tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen. >>>>>>>>Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men. >>>>>>>>
Oh, I do. I have little choice here, and have been pleasantly surprised
by some.
That's lovely.
Never underestimate the value of a woman's compliment in any discourse >>>>>> between men and women. It is often possible to change minds that way. >>>>>> Trans women lack that innate skill, though. It would probably be
necessary to implant an extra chip.
I thought "trans women are women" though? You seem to have some doubt over
that.
I thought most people would agree that trans women or trans men are a
social construct. There may be some people who believe that you can
literally be a woman in a man's body. I don't happen to accept that
belief but I'm not a scientist or a doctor. There was a time long ago
when people who wanted to change to the other sex were deemed to be
mentally ill. That particular theory has been abandoned by the medical >>>> establishment. What I find unreasonable is to say that biologically you >>>> can't change sex and therefore you should not be allowed to live your
life as a woman after you were born a man. The belief that you should be >>>> straightjacketed into a male role or a female role is akin to religious >>>> fundamentalism and causes needless and avoidable distress. I guess if
Eddie Izard or Grayson Perry were to visit Iran they would probably be >>>> arrested and prosecuted.
I absolutely agree with you. But I want to say that the GRA was misconceived.
They are not morally entitled to present themselves as women in some
circumstances involving biological women. Some women asking to be treated for
intimate care by a female may be shocked to find that they are treated by an
intact male with a GRC. In the case of some strands of Judaism or Islam at >>> least, they may regard it as a sinful and forbidden act. Religion as you know
is another protected characteristic. I again quote the doctor in the recent >>> tribunal case. I quote him not because he is clearly mad, but because he is >>> representative of at least one widely held view. Not only did he say that he
would treat a woman who had asked for exclusively female care without telling
her his status, but he also declared, several times under cross examination on
oath, that he was "a biological woman", despite the fact that it was accepted
that his body was that of a normal, virile male. And indeed that he has a >>> female wife.
If he said he was a biological woman then it does seem an odd thing to
say but I don't know if the outcome of the case will turn on that.
I think we can all look forward to the outcome of the case, which by the
look of it will take several months to reach a final judgment. And
whatever the outcome there may well be lobbying for changes to the law
which will perhaps involve deciding whether religious scruples should
outweigh the rights of transgender people.
And indeed whether the rights of women (another protected group, as are men of
course) should outweigh the rights of transgender people.
On 21 Feb 2025 at 19:26:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are determined to obtain
the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into Oxbridge or at
least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive dining halls and
team
sports for the gentry.
The Todal 2024
[...]
quote:
The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie and the working
class is
that
the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie there is another
unbridgeable
gulf between the 'public' school and the 'private' school. It is quite clear >> that there
are tens
and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a 'posh' >> public school
is
wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic world of
quad-rangles
and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about it, live
mentally in it
for hours
at a stretch. The question is, Who arc these people? Who reads the Gem and >> Magnet?
[........]
They are generally on sale in the poorest quarters of big towns, and I have >> known them to
be
read by boys whom one might expect to be completely immune from public-school
'glamour'.
I have seen a young coal miner, for instance, a lad who had already worked a >> year or two
underground,
eagerly reading the Gem
:unquote
George Orwell "Boys Weeklies" 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Weeklies
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/english/e_boys
bb
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in the 1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much else to read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, and Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else. Assuming she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from her books.
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Feb 2025 at 19:26:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are determined
to obtain
the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into
Oxbridge or at
least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive dining
halls and
team
sports for the gentry.
The Todal 2024
[...]
quote:
The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie and
the working
class is
that
the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie there
is another
unbridgeable
gulf between the 'public' school and the 'private' school. It is
quite clear
that there
are tens
and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a
'posh'
public school
is
wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic
world of
quad-rangles
and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about it, live >>> mentally in it
for hours
at a stretch. The question is, Who arc these people? Who reads the
Gem and
Magnet?
[........]
They are generally on sale in the poorest quarters of big towns, and
I have
known them to
be
read by boys whom one might expect to be completely immune from
public-school
'glamour'.
I have seen a young coal miner, for instance, a lad who had already
worked a
year or two
underground,
eagerly reading the Gem
:unquote
George Orwell "Boys Weeklies" 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Weeklies
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/english/e_boys
bb
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in
the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much
else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s,
and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else.
Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from
her books.
They are books for children, they get them reading, and I am sure you
would agree, a step up from The Great Dog Bottom Swap.
And, less about boarding school than wizardry!
On 19/02/2025 23:49, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2025 22:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 22:06:57 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and >>>>>>> society that might well be important advice.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men. >>>>>>>
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>>> women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets
applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people
have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people
fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have >>>>> nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that.
FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming >>>>> acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also
understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have >>>>> those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going >>>>> to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get >>>>> everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both >>>>> sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is >>>> to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth. And no that isn't hyperbole, even if
the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
And, as someone just pointed out, some of their supporters want to wipe JK >>> Rowling off the face of the earth. Which is not a reasonable point of view. >>>
I'm going to hazard a guess that both groups of extremists are a small,
deranged minority.
Unfortunately JK Rowling has become more extremist and her social media posts
more provocative, over the years.
Having spoken about her personal experiences and made some very good points, >> she
seems now to see herself as a flag-bearer for a cause. Obviously I agree that
anyone threatening her with violence should be prosecuted. But maybe she should
do that thing that Kat recommended. Just listen. Listen and shut the fuck up >> for
a bit. And obviously continue writing her second-rate children's stories.
Strike. Just saying. I love it. Or does that make me a TERF?
On 19/02/2025 13:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree
on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups*
of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are
clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from
that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans
people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
Levels of vulnerability?
It is one thing that I have often wondered about the demands for trans rights.
A trans woman, one who has completed the transition and is - how shall I put it
because I am trying not to offend - "less male and more female" than those who
don't, would find herself in the same catagory of vulnerabity as all other women.
So why don't trans rights activists recognise that problem?
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in the 1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much else to read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, and Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else. Assuming she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from her books.
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in
the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much
else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s,
and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else.
Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from
her books.
Have you ever read 'The Tall Poppy Syndrome' I wonder?
On 23/02/2025 13:44, kat wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Feb 2025 at 19:26:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com>
wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are determined
to obtain
the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into
Oxbridge or at
least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive dining
halls and
team
sports for the gentry.
The Todal 2024
[...]
quote:
The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie and
the working
class is
that
the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie there
is another
unbridgeable
gulf between the 'public' school and the 'private' school. It is
quite clear
that there
are tens
and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a
'posh'
public school
is
wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic
world of
quad-rangles
and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about it, live >>>> mentally in it
for hours
at a stretch. The question is, Who arc these people? Who reads the
Gem and
Magnet?
[........]
They are generally on sale in the poorest quarters of big towns, and
I have
known them to
be
read by boys whom one might expect to be completely immune from
public-school
'glamour'.
I have seen a young coal miner, for instance, a lad who had already
worked a
year or two
underground,
eagerly reading the Gem
:unquote
George Orwell "Boys Weeklies" 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Weeklies
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/english/e_boys
bb
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in
the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much
else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s,
and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else.
Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from
her books.
They are books for children, they get them reading, and I am sure you
would agree, a step up from The Great Dog Bottom Swap.
And, less about boarding school than wizardry!
I haven't managed to read a Harry Potter book from beginning to end, due
to a strong sense of boredom. But I think Rowling chose a specific
market for her children's fiction, based on boarding schools. Billy
Bunter, Jennings and Darbishire, Tom Brown's Schooldays and maybe Malory Towers.
A far cry from the local comprehensive, there is a sense of privilege,
being superior to "ordinary" children, studying intellectual subjects
(the equivalent of Latin and Greek) that common children can never have
the aptitude to cope with.
Wizardry? Just symbolic of nepotism and the ability of rich kids to grab success in life.
And there's the "sorting hat" which conveys the impression to the reader
that some children are more courageous and chivalrous or more sly and
devious than others. I find it offensive to label any human being in
that way, and it is no excuse to say that it is merely fiction.
I hope these books do get kids reading rather than seeking out the
overpriced merchandise, the magic wands and cloaks, and going to see the films. Watching the film of a book, whether it's a children's book or a
Jane Austen book or "Lord of the FLies", is the lowest form of culture
and the laziest and least effective way for any child to study literature.
Eventually Rowling decided to try her hand at adult crime fiction under
the name of Robert Galbraith. How surprising that she was rejected by
two publishers. It needn't mean that her work was mediocre, of course.
On 23 Feb 2025 at 13:21:17 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 23:49, The Todal wrote:
Unfortunately JK Rowling has become more extremist and her social media posts
more provocative, over the years.
Having spoken about her personal experiences and made some very good points, she
seems now to see herself as a flag-bearer for a cause. Obviously I agree that
anyone threatening her with violence should be prosecuted. But maybe she should
do that thing that Kat recommended. Just listen. Listen and shut the fuck up
for a bit. And obviously continue writing her second-rate children's stories.
Strike. Just saying. I love it. Or does that make me a TERF?
Can you recommend one? I strongly dislike her children's books, mainly for literary reasons
but I am willing to consider her other books,
On 23 Feb 2025 at 15:22:46 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Eventually Rowling decided to try her hand at adult crime fiction under
the name of Robert Galbraith. How surprising that she was rejected by
two publishers. It needn't mean that her work was mediocre, of course.
To be fair, being rejected by only two publishers for one's first book is probably a sign of excellence! I plan to read one of her books before commenting, I agree about her Harry Potter books, also their total failure to acknowledge 200 years of fantasy literature.
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:46:23 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men >>>>>> about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said, >>>>>> but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add - >>>>>> tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men.
If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and
society that might well be important advice.
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree
on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups* >>> of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are
clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from
that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans
people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
Levels of vulnerability?
It is one thing that I have often wondered about the demands for trans rights.
A trans woman, one who has completed the transition and is - how shall I put it
because I am trying not to offend - "less male and more female" than those who
don't, would find herself in the same catagory of vulnerabity as all other >> women.
Note quite. They are likely to have grown up as a man and never had the same apprehension as many women have. And they are on average likely to be bigger than the average woman, and much more likely to have considerably greater upper body strength than most women. But to some extent you may be right.
So why don't trans rights activists recognise that problem?
I think their leaders and propagandists have no comprehension of, or at least make no allowance for, the rights of women. And obviously are not keen on a gradation of rights or any concept that women may have conflicting rights. My totally unevidenced guess is that the general run of trans women may have much
more sympathy for your suggestion.
On 23 Feb 2025 at 13:21:17 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 23:49, The Todal wrote:
On 19/02/2025 22:56, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 22:06:57 GMT, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Martin Harran <martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 13:34:56 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-02-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Feb 2025 at 11:47:43 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 10:54, kat wrote:If there were a systematic neglect of men's views in Parliament and >>>>>>>> society that might well be important advice.
The bigger problem I see, due to many years attempting to talk to men
about all sorts of things is that some don't actually hear what is said,
but what is running through their own minds instead. So I would add -
tell the men to stop thinking and just really listen.
Perhaps you should stop thinking and "really listen" to the men. >>>>>>>>
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>>>> women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
One of the problems in this debate is that the binary approach gets >>>>>> applied to people regarding trans rights vs anti-trans, that people >>>>>> have to be one or the other. I think many - possibly most - people >>>>>> fall somewhere in the middle. That certainly applies to myself, I have >>>>>> nothing but empathy for people who feel trapped in the wrong
biological body and fully support their efforts to deal with that. >>>>>> FWIW, that is partly based on my own experience of a nephew and a
niece transgendering [1] and I was delighted to see the overwhelming >>>>>> acceptance and support they got from their extended family. I also >>>>>> understand the fears of women towards men and they too deserve to have >>>>>> those feelings taken into account. Finding a balance is always going >>>>>> to be difficult and, as in most areas of life, neither side will get >>>>>> everything they want and there will have to be give and take on both >>>>>> sides.
It's hard for the trans side to "give and take" when what they want is >>>>> to be allowed to exist in society and the other side wants to wipe
them off the face of the earth. And no that isn't hyperbole, even if >>>>> the GCs try to dress it up nicely.
And, as someone just pointed out, some of their supporters want to wipe JK >>>> Rowling off the face of the earth. Which is not a reasonable point of view.
I'm going to hazard a guess that both groups of extremists are a small, >>>> deranged minority.
Unfortunately JK Rowling has become more extremist and her social media posts
more provocative, over the years.
Having spoken about her personal experiences and made some very good points,
she
seems now to see herself as a flag-bearer for a cause. Obviously I agree that
anyone threatening her with violence should be prosecuted. But maybe she should
do that thing that Kat recommended. Just listen. Listen and shut the fuck up
for
a bit. And obviously continue writing her second-rate children's stories. >>>
Strike. Just saying. I love it. Or does that make me a TERF?
Can you recommend one? I strongly dislike her children's books, mainly for literary reasons, but I am willing to consider her other books, and can do so without any reference to her personal politics.
On 23/02/2025 13:44, kat wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Feb 2025 at 19:26:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are determined to obtain
the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into Oxbridge or at
least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive dining halls and
team
sports for the gentry.
The Todal 2024
[...]
quote:
The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie and the working
class is
that
the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie there is another
unbridgeable
gulf between the 'public' school and the 'private' school. It is quite clear
that there
are tens
and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a 'posh' >>>> public school
is
wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic world of
quad-rangles
and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about it, live >>>> mentally in it
for hours
at a stretch. The question is, Who arc these people? Who reads the Gem and >>>> Magnet?
[........]
They are generally on sale in the poorest quarters of big towns, and I have
known them to
be
read by boys whom one might expect to be completely immune from public-school
'glamour'.
I have seen a young coal miner, for instance, a lad who had already worked a
year or two
underground,
eagerly reading the Gem
:unquote
George Orwell "Boys Weeklies" 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Weeklies
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/english/e_boys
bb
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in the >>> 1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, and >>> Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else. Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from her books.
They are books for children, they get them reading, and I am sure you would >> agree, a step up from The Great Dog Bottom Swap.
And, less about boarding school than wizardry!
I haven't managed to read a Harry Potter book from beginning to end, due to a strong sense of boredom. But I think Rowling chose a specific market for her children's fiction, based on boarding schools. Billy Bunter, Jennings and Darbishire, Tom Brown's Schooldays and maybe Malory Towers.
A far cry from the local comprehensive, there is a sense of privilege, being superior to "ordinary" children, studying intellectual subjects (the equivalent
of Latin and Greek) that common children can never have the aptitude to cope with.
Wizardry? Just symbolic of nepotism and the ability of rich kids to grab success
in life.
And there's the "sorting hat" which conveys the impression to the reader that some children are more courageous and chivalrous or more sly and devious than others. I find it offensive to label any human being in that way, and it is no
excuse to say that it is merely fiction.
On 23/02/2025 15:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in
the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much
else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s,
and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else.
Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from
her books.
Have you ever read 'The Tall Poppy Syndrome' I wonder?
Was that an Enid Blyton book that she sensibly binned having realised
that she had run out of ideas?
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:46:23 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore
that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree
on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups* >>> of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are
clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from
that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans
people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
Levels of vulnerability?
It is one thing that I have often wondered about the demands for
trans rights. A trans woman, one who has completed the transition and
is - how shall I put it because I am trying not to offend - "less
male and more female" than those who don't, would find herself in the
same catagory of vulnerabity as all other women.
Note quite. They are likely to have grown up as a man and never had
the same apprehension as many women have. And they are on average
likely to be bigger than the average woman, and much more likely to
have considerably greater upper body strength than most women. But to
some extent you may be right.
So why don't trans rights activists recognise that problem?
I think their leaders and propagandists have no comprehension of, or
at least make no allowance for, the rights of women.
And obviously are not keen on a gradation of rights or any concept
that women may have conflicting rights.
My totally unevidenced guess is that the general run of trans women
may have much more sympathy for your suggestion.
On 23/02/2025 15:03, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 13:21:17 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 23:49, The Todal wrote:
Unfortunately JK Rowling has become more extremist and her social media posts
more provocative, over the years.
Having spoken about her personal experiences and made some very good
points, she
seems now to see herself as a flag-bearer for a cause. Obviously I agree that
anyone threatening her with violence should be prosecuted. But maybe she should
do that thing that Kat recommended. Just listen. Listen and shut the fuck up
for a bit. And obviously continue writing her second-rate children's stories.
Strike. Just saying. I love it. Or does that make me a TERF?
Can you recommend one? I strongly dislike her children's books, mainly for >> literary reasons
But who are you to judge, I wonder?
On 23/02/2025 15:22, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2025 13:44, kat wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Feb 2025 at 19:26:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>>
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are determined to obtain
the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into Oxbridge or at
least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive dining halls and
team
sports for the gentry.
The Todal 2024
[...]
quote:
The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie and the working
class is
that
the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie there is another
unbridgeable
gulf between the 'public' school and the 'private' school. It is quite clear
that there
are tens
and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a 'posh'
public school
is
wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic world of
quad-rangles
and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about it, live >>>>> mentally in it
for hours
at a stretch. The question is, Who arc these people? Who reads the Gem and
Magnet?
[........]
They are generally on sale in the poorest quarters of big towns, and I have
known them to
be
read by boys whom one might expect to be completely immune from public-school
'glamour'.
I have seen a young coal miner, for instance, a lad who had already worked a
year or two
underground,
eagerly reading the Gem
:unquote
George Orwell "Boys Weeklies" 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Weeklies
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/english/e_boys
bb
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in the >>>> 1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, and >>>> Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else. Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from her books.
They are books for children, they get them reading, and I am sure you would >>> agree, a step up from The Great Dog Bottom Swap.
And, less about boarding school than wizardry!
I haven't managed to read a Harry Potter book from beginning to end, due to a
strong sense of boredom. But I think Rowling chose a specific market for her >> children's fiction, based on boarding schools. Billy Bunter, Jennings and
Darbishire, Tom Brown's Schooldays and maybe Malory Towers.
A far cry from the local comprehensive, there is a sense of privilege, being >> superior to "ordinary" children, studying intellectual subjects (the equivalent
of Latin and Greek) that common children can never have the aptitude to cope >> with.
I don't know about intellectual, maybe just more fun.
Wizardry? Just symbolic of nepotism and the ability of rich kids to grab
success
in life.
And there's the "sorting hat" which conveys the impression to the reader that
some children are more courageous and chivalrous or more sly and devious than
others. I find it offensive to label any human being in that way, and it is no
excuse to say that it is merely fiction.
It is interesting that you would appear to think that certain traits are "better" than others. The point of the Sorting Hat, to my mind, is that the children are grouped with people with whom they have something in common and will feel more comfortable - while taking actual lessons with everyone.
Which do you consider "best"? Courage, Slyness, Loyal and hardworking, or Clever?
Perhaps you might do the test online and get Sorted. ;-)
On 23 Feb 2025 at 16:06:23 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 15:03, Roger Hayter wrote:Are you seriously saying I have no right to judge what I *like*?
Can you recommend one? I strongly dislike her children's books, mainly for >>> literary reasons
But who are you to judge, I wonder?
On 23 Feb 2025 at 13:21:17 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Strike. Just saying. I love it. Or does that make me a TERF?
Can you recommend one? I strongly dislike her children's books, mainly for >literary reasons, but I am willing to consider her other books, and can do so >without any reference to her personal politics.
On 23 Feb 2025 19:06:44 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 16:06:23 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 15:03, Roger Hayter wrote:Are you seriously saying I have no right to judge what I *like*?
Can you recommend one? I strongly dislike her children's books, mainly for >>>> literary reasons
But who are you to judge, I wonder?
You're perfectly entitled to judge what you like. As is everybody else. Ultimately, all forms of entertainment, including the Harry Potter books, James Bond movies, Taylor Swift's music and TV soap operas, live or die by that en masse assessment. But your use of the phrase "literary reasons" suggests that you think there's some more objective means of judging entertainment than mere popularity.
Unlike Norman, I'm not suggesting that you're not qualified to make a more objective assessment. I think anyone who is sufficiently familiar with a sufficiently wide ouvre of a particular form of entertainment is, at least theoretically, in a position to engage in a more dispassionate consideration than merely "what I like". But in order to effectively make that assessment you do need to be able to communicate and, where necessary, explain the criteria you are using. Because even they may not necessarily be universal.
Mark
On 23 Feb 2025 at 16:06:23 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 15:03, Roger Hayter wrote:Are you seriously saying I have no right to judge what I *like*?
On 23 Feb 2025 at 13:21:17 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 19/02/2025 23:49, The Todal wrote:
Unfortunately JK Rowling has become more extremist and her social media posts
more provocative, over the years.
Having spoken about her personal experiences and made some very good >>>>> points, she
seems now to see herself as a flag-bearer for a cause. Obviously I agree that
anyone threatening her with violence should be prosecuted. But maybe she should
do that thing that Kat recommended. Just listen. Listen and shut the fuck up
for a bit. And obviously continue writing her second-rate children's stories.
Strike. Just saying. I love it. Or does that make me a TERF?
Can you recommend one? I strongly dislike her children's books, mainly for >>> literary reasons
But who are you to judge, I wonder?
On 23 Feb 2025 15:03:56 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 13:21:17 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Strike. Just saying. I love it. Or does that make me a TERF?
Can you recommend one? I strongly dislike her children's books, mainly for >> literary reasons, but I am willing to consider her other books, and can do so
without any reference to her personal politics.
Start with the first one. Most reviewers would agree that it's not,
actually, the best in the series. It's her first stab at crime fiction, and if that's a genre that you're already familiar with then it shows. The "whodunnit" aspect in particular will feel a bit of a let down if you're an Agatha Christie fan. However, there are still some good reasons for starting with the first book in the series. The main one is that the series (similar to Harry Potter in that respect) follows a continuous story arc, and the recurring characters (not just Strike and Ellacott but their colleagues, family and friends) age and develop over the course of the series. So
jumping in part way through the series will not only mean that you're going to be missing a considerable part of the context, but the later books, if read out of sequence, contain spoilers to the earlier ones.
The other reason for starting with the first book is that JK Rowling writing as Robert Galbraith follows exactly the same literary path as JK Rowling writing as JK Rowling. That is, the first couple of books in the series are tightly edited and don't have too much unnecesary verbiage, but once the author has name recognition and people will buy the books just because "It's the next Harry Potter book!" or "It's the next Cormoran Strike book!" that discipline (either self-discipline or imposed by a publisher) goes out of
the window. I do like the books, and have read all of them (so far), but
some of the later books are probably about 30% longer than they really
needed to be. And most of the bloat is character development and backstory, which is precisely the part that won't make sense without the context from the earlier books.
So, start with the first one and see how you get on with it. It also has the advantage that it's been out long enough now that you're quite likely to
find one on the "Any paperback for 50p" shelves at charity shops, thus minimising your investment. But if you do prefer to buy a new one, here's an affiliate link which will earn me approximately 3p if you use it:
https://amzn.to/3Xar82U
Mark
On 2025-02-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:46:23 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 19/02/2025 13:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs
women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree >>>> on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups* >>>> of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are
clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from >>>> that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans
people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
Levels of vulnerability?
It is one thing that I have often wondered about the demands for
trans rights. A trans woman, one who has completed the transition and
is - how shall I put it because I am trying not to offend - "less
male and more female" than those who don't, would find herself in the
same catagory of vulnerabity as all other women.
More likely she is *more* vulnerable than the average woman. Trans
people are far more likely to be the victim of violence than cis people.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 15:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in >>>> the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much
else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, >>>> and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else.
Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from
her books.
Have you ever read 'The Tall Poppy Syndrome' I wonder?
Did you miss out an ‘about’ there?
There is an audiobook “The Tall Poppy Syndrome: The Joy of Cutting Others Down” but not a book you can read as far as I can tell.
There is a lot written about Tall Poppy Syndrome and the name dates back to Roman times according to the sources I have seen. In modern times the term
is associated with New Zealand and Australia but the behaviour is
widespread throughout the world.
I can see the relevance to the thread but perhaps more than just the name might have been useful. The criticism of JKR does seem to fit the pattern.
Was that an Enid Blyton book that she sensibly binned having realised
that she had run out of ideas?
Enid Blyton was also a very successful female author and belittling what
she wrote looks like Tall Poppy Syndrome too.
On 23 Feb 2025 at 16:45:48 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 15:22, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2025 13:44, kat wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Feb 2025 at 19:26:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are determined to obtain
the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into Oxbridge or at
least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive dining halls and
team
sports for the gentry.
The Todal 2024
[...]
quote:
The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie and the working
class is
that
the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie there is another
unbridgeable
gulf between the 'public' school and the 'private' school. It is quite clear
that there
are tens
and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a 'posh'
public school
is
wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic world of
quad-rangles
and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about it, live >>>>>> mentally in it
for hours
at a stretch. The question is, Who arc these people? Who reads the Gem and
Magnet?
[........]
They are generally on sale in the poorest quarters of big towns, and I have
known them to
be
read by boys whom one might expect to be completely immune from public-school
'glamour'.
I have seen a young coal miner, for instance, a lad who had already worked a
year or two
underground,
eagerly reading the Gem
:unquote
George Orwell "Boys Weeklies" 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Weeklies
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/english/e_boys
bb
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else. Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from her books.
They are books for children, they get them reading, and I am sure you would
agree, a step up from The Great Dog Bottom Swap.
And, less about boarding school than wizardry!
I haven't managed to read a Harry Potter book from beginning to end, due to a
strong sense of boredom. But I think Rowling chose a specific market for her
children's fiction, based on boarding schools. Billy Bunter, Jennings and >>> Darbishire, Tom Brown's Schooldays and maybe Malory Towers.
A far cry from the local comprehensive, there is a sense of privilege, being
superior to "ordinary" children, studying intellectual subjects (the equivalent
of Latin and Greek) that common children can never have the aptitude to cope
with.
I don't know about intellectual, maybe just more fun.
Wizardry? Just symbolic of nepotism and the ability of rich kids to grab >>> success
in life.
And there's the "sorting hat" which conveys the impression to the reader that
some children are more courageous and chivalrous or more sly and devious than
others. I find it offensive to label any human being in that way, and it is no
excuse to say that it is merely fiction.
It is interesting that you would appear to think that certain traits are
"better" than others. The point of the Sorting Hat, to my mind, is that the
children are grouped with people with whom they have something in common and >> will feel more comfortable - while taking actual lessons with everyone.
Which do you consider "best"? Courage, Slyness, Loyal and hardworking, or
Clever?
Perhaps you might do the test online and get Sorted. ;-)
I don't know whether this is the right place for the minutiae of literary criticism, but this is one of the most jarring themes through the books. Possibly this is her intention, but I think it is a weakness. "Slyness" is indisputabliy pejorative. No one is proud of being sly. Sly people are inevitably disliked. There are, of course, near synonyms she could have used,
subtle, introverted, etc - not my job to choose - but the rest of the book simply assumes that a proportion of humanity are basically bad people, but happy to be lumped with their peers; but no one is going to come out and say they noticed - it comes as a surprise each time!
On 23/02/2025 19:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 16:45:48 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 15:22, The Todal wrote:
On 23/02/2025 13:44, kat wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Feb 2025 at 19:26:01 GMT, ""billy bookcase""
<billy@anon.com> wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m1r3e4F1dj2U1@mid.individual.net...
Seemingly there are children and doting parents who are
determined to obtain
the full
set of Rowling's oeuvre. Maybe it will help your kid get into
Oxbridge or at
least into
one of those posh private schools with "houses", impressive
dining halls and
team
sports for the gentry.
The Todal 2024
[...]
quote:
The most definite dividing line between the petite-bourgeoisie
and the working
class is
that
the former pay for their education, and within the bourgeoisie
there is another
unbridgeable
gulf between the 'public' school and the 'private' school. It is >>>>>>> quite clear
that there
are tens
and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at >>>>>>> a 'posh'
public school
is
wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that
mystic world of
quad-rangles
and house-colours, but they can yearn after it, day-dream about
it, live
mentally in it
for hours
at a stretch. The question is, Who arc these people? Who reads
the Gem and
Magnet?
[........]
They are generally on sale in the poorest quarters of big towns, >>>>>>> and I have
known them to
be
read by boys whom one might expect to be completely immune from
public-school
'glamour'.
I have seen a young coal miner, for instance, a lad who had
already worked a
year or two
underground,
eagerly reading the Gem
:unquote
George Orwell "Boys Weeklies" 1940
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys%27_Weeklies
https://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/boys/english/e_boys
bb
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding
schools in the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't
much else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the
1950s, and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing
else. Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious
from her books.
They are books for children, they get them reading, and I am sure
you would
agree, a step up from The Great Dog Bottom Swap.
And, less about boarding school than wizardry!
I haven't managed to read a Harry Potter book from beginning to end,
due to a
strong sense of boredom. But I think Rowling chose a specific market
for her
children's fiction, based on boarding schools. Billy Bunter,
Jennings and
Darbishire, Tom Brown's Schooldays and maybe Malory Towers.
A far cry from the local comprehensive, there is a sense of
privilege, being
superior to "ordinary" children, studying intellectual subjects (the
equivalent
of Latin and Greek) that common children can never have the aptitude
to cope
with.
I don't know about intellectual, maybe just more fun.
Wizardry? Just symbolic of nepotism and the ability of rich kids to
grab
success
in life.
And there's the "sorting hat" which conveys the impression to the
reader that
some children are more courageous and chivalrous or more sly and
devious than
others. I find it offensive to label any human being in that way,
and it is no
excuse to say that it is merely fiction.
It is interesting that you would appear to think that certain traits are >>> "better" than others. The point of the Sorting Hat, to my mind, is
that the
children are grouped with people with whom they have something in
common and
will feel more comfortable - while taking actual lessons with everyone.
Which do you consider "best"? Courage, Slyness, Loyal and
hardworking, or
Clever?
Perhaps you might do the test online and get Sorted. ;-)
I don't know whether this is the right place for the minutiae of literary
criticism, but this is one of the most jarring themes through the books.
Possibly this is her intention, but I think it is a weakness.
"Slyness" is
indisputabliy pejorative. No one is proud of being sly. Sly people are
inevitably disliked. There are, of course, near synonyms she could
have used,
subtle, introverted, etc - not my job to choose - but the rest of the
book
simply assumes that a proportion of humanity are basically bad people,
but
happy to be lumped with their peers; but no one is going to come out
and say
they noticed - it comes as a surprise each time!
The "bad" people in Slytherin (none of whom could be called introverted
and rarely subtle and a house the Sorting Hat thought Harry would do
well in, so not all those with the trait could possibly be bad) believe
in being purebloods. The implication seems to me that they are the
wizarding world equivalent of a certain party that liked to dispense
with those they considered "mudbloods".
I fail to see that labeling such people as "bad" is so terrible.
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in the 1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much else to read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, and Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else. Assuming she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from her books.
On 24/02/2025 11:07, kat wrote:
On 23/02/2025 19:04, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 16:45:48 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
And there's the "sorting hat" which conveys the impression to the reader that
some children are more courageous and chivalrous or more sly and devious than
others. I find it offensive to label any human being in that way, and it is no
excuse to say that it is merely fiction.
It is interesting that you would appear to think that certain traits are >>>> "better" than others. The point of the Sorting Hat, to my mind, is that the
children are grouped with people with whom they have something in common and
will feel more comfortable - while taking actual lessons with everyone. >>>>
Which do you consider "best"? Courage, Slyness, Loyal and hardworking, or >>>> Clever?
Perhaps you might do the test online and get Sorted. ;-)
I don't know whether this is the right place for the minutiae of literary >>> criticism, but this is one of the most jarring themes through the books. >>> Possibly this is her intention, but I think it is a weakness. "Slyness" is >>> indisputabliy pejorative. No one is proud of being sly. Sly people are
inevitably disliked. There are, of course, near synonyms she could have used,
subtle, introverted, etc - not my job to choose - but the rest of the book >>> simply assumes that a proportion of humanity are basically bad people, but >>> happy to be lumped with their peers; but no one is going to come out and say
they noticed - it comes as a surprise each time!
The "bad" people in Slytherin (none of whom could be called introverted and >> rarely subtle and a house the Sorting Hat thought Harry would do well in, so >> not all those with the trait could possibly be bad) believe in being
purebloods. The implication seems to me that they are the wizarding world
equivalent of a certain party that liked to dispense with those they
considered "mudbloods".
I fail to see that labeling such people as "bad" is so terrible.
You say "people" but actually these are children, aren't they?
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know that they
have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be capable of violence towards the child.
And adults are usually the product of their upbringing. Character traits such as
courage, studiousness, cowardice, deceitfulness, manipulative behaviour and narcissism are unlikely to be genetic and more likely to have evolved during childhood from parental and peer influences.
How could it possibly benefit a sly and manipulative child to place it in an exclusive community of sly and manipulative children, where the behaviour of each is reinforced by peers? I should think children reading these books would
tend to think: I know classmates like that. They aren't like me. I don't trust
them. I'd fit in well if we had a Ravenclaw house. Hey, let's meet at dinner time and make a list of the people in our class and decide whom we like and whom
we won't invite to parties.
I wonder which "house" the sorting hat would have chosen for Joanne Rowling.
On 23/02/2025 17:31, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 15:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in >>>>> the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much >>>>> else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, >>>>> and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else.
Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from
her books.
Have you ever read 'The Tall Poppy Syndrome' I wonder?
Did you miss out an ‘about’ there?
There is an audiobook “The Tall Poppy Syndrome: The Joy of Cutting Others >> Down” but not a book you can read as far as I can tell.
There is a lot written about Tall Poppy Syndrome and the name dates back to >> Roman times according to the sources I have seen. In modern times the term >> is associated with New Zealand and Australia but the behaviour is
widespread throughout the world.
I can see the relevance to the thread but perhaps more than just the name
might have been useful. The criticism of JKR does seem to fit the pattern. >>
Was that an Enid Blyton book that she sensibly binned having realised
that she had run out of ideas?
Enid Blyton was also a very successful female author and belittling what
she wrote looks like Tall Poppy Syndrome too.
And making fun of Donald J Trump and Elon Musk is also Tall Poppy
Syndrome. Yes, we get the idea. Success deserves praise.
On 23/02/2025 17:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:46:23 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 19/02/2025 13:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate >>>>> is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>> women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree >>>>> on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups* >>>>> of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in
general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are >>>>> clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from >>>>> that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to
involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans >>>>> people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men
oppressing vulnerable women".
Levels of vulnerability?
It is one thing that I have often wondered about the demands for
trans rights. A trans woman, one who has completed the transition and
is - how shall I put it because I am trying not to offend - "less
male and more female" than those who don't, would find herself in the
same catagory of vulnerabity as all other women.
More likely she is *more* vulnerable than the average woman. Trans
people are far more likely to be the victim of violence than cis people.
But I doubt they are more vulnerable in "women only" spaces!
On 23/02/2025 17:31, Owen Rees wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 15:13, Norman Wells wrote:
On 21/02/2025 21:42, Roger Hayter wrote:
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in >>>>> the
1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much >>>>> else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, >>>>> and
Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else.
Assuming
she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from
her books.
Have you ever read 'The Tall Poppy Syndrome' I wonder?
Did you miss out an ‘about’ there?
There is an audiobook “The Tall Poppy Syndrome: The Joy of Cutting Others >> Down” but not a book you can read as far as I can tell.
There is a lot written about Tall Poppy Syndrome and the name dates back to >> Roman times according to the sources I have seen. In modern times the term >> is associated with New Zealand and Australia but the behaviour is
widespread throughout the world.
I can see the relevance to the thread but perhaps more than just the name
might have been useful. The criticism of JKR does seem to fit the pattern. >>
Was that an Enid Blyton book that she sensibly binned having realised
that she had run out of ideas?
Enid Blyton was also a very successful female author and belittling what
she wrote looks like Tall Poppy Syndrome too.
And making fun of Donald J Trump and Elon Musk is also Tall Poppy
Syndrome. Yes, we get the idea. Success deserves praise.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:7414290572.0a5052c8@uninhabited.net...
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in the >> 1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, and >> Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else. Assuming >> she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from her books.
Er, (having just looked it up) you do realise of course that Hogwarts wasn't just " any old boarding school" but a boarding school specifically aimed at children showing magical ability so as to allow them to qualify as wizards ? Or something
While apparently it needed to be a boarding school as much of the action took place at night
So not exactly Greyfriars, IOW,
While by the 1950's "The Eagle " came along, and completely altered the landscape in any case.
bb
On 24 Feb 2025 at 11:09:19 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 17:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:46:23 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 19/02/2025 13:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs
anti-trans debate is that the anti-trans people regard trans
women as men, and therefore that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e.
a powerful, oppressor group) vs women (i.e. a more vulnerable group). >>>>>>
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to
disagree on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree
that *subgroups* of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable
group than men in general. So for example if we consider gay men
in the 1980s, they are clearly men but nevertheless still an
oppressed group. So perhaps from that point of view you can at
least consider the "trans debate" to involve two vulnerable
groups (even if you might not agree that trans people are the
*more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men oppressing
vulnerable women".
Levels of vulnerability?
It is one thing that I have often wondered about the demands for
trans rights. A trans woman, one who has completed the transition and >>>>> is - how shall I put it because I am trying not to offend - "less
male and more female" than those who don't, would find herself in the >>>>> same catagory of vulnerabity as all other women.
More likely she is *more* vulnerable than the average woman. Trans
people are far more likely to be the victim of violence than cis people.
But I doubt they are more vulnerable in "women only" spaces!
It is entirely possible that an embarrassed women might unkindly ask
them to leave their changing room, though. That might leave them sad.
On 24 Feb 2025 at 11:09:19 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 23/02/2025 17:54, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-02-23, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 23 Feb 2025 at 12:46:23 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 19/02/2025 13:34, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Obviously one of the main issues in the trans rights vs anti-trans debate
is that the anti-trans people regard trans women as men, and therefore >>>>>> that the "two sides" are "men" (i.e. a powerful, oppressor group) vs >>>>>> women (i.e. a more vulnerable group).
Something that occurs to me though is that even if we agree to disagree >>>>>> on whether trans women are "men", we can probably agree that *subgroups* >>>>>> of men can be considered to be a more vulnerable group than men in >>>>>> general. So for example if we consider gay men in the 1980s, they are >>>>>> clearly men but nevertheless still an oppressed group. So perhaps from >>>>>> that point of view you can at least consider the "trans debate" to >>>>>> involve two vulnerable groups (even if you might not agree that trans >>>>>> people are the *more* vulnerable group), rather than "powerful men >>>>>> oppressing vulnerable women".
Levels of vulnerability?
It is one thing that I have often wondered about the demands for
trans rights. A trans woman, one who has completed the transition and >>>>> is - how shall I put it because I am trying not to offend - "less
male and more female" than those who don't, would find herself in the >>>>> same catagory of vulnerabity as all other women.
More likely she is *more* vulnerable than the average woman. Trans
people are far more likely to be the victim of violence than cis people. >>>
But I doubt they are more vulnerable in "women only" spaces!
It is entirely possible that an embarrassed women might unkindly ask them to leave their changing room, though. That might leave them sad.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:7414290572.0a5052c8@uninhabited.net...
Not sure I agree with Orwell, I read stories about boarding schools in the >> 1950s because all the authors had been to them, and there wasn't much else to
read after you'd outgrown Noddy and Enid Blyton. But that's the 1950s, and >> Rowling really doesn't have the excuse that she knows nothing else. Assuming >> she ever read a book before writing hers; which is not obvious from her books.
Er, (having just looked it up) you do realise of course that Hogwarts wasn't just " any old boarding school" but a boarding school specifically aimed at children showing magical ability so as to allow them to qualify as wizards ? Or something
While apparently it needed to be a boarding school as much of the action took place at night
So not exactly Greyfriars, IOW,
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from
being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how
to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it
might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being
sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys,
perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be
some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works.
Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a
bit of urgent resilience training.
We also need some sort of distinction between 'assault', 'harassment',
'violence' and 'abuse'. What do you include in each category please?
What does Ofsted?
You assume, perhaps, that anyone here was involved in collating the
reports and compiling the statistics.
Maybe you should write to Mr Grab-em-by-the-Pussy and ask him for his opinion, and for an explanation of why the USA has contrived to get
Andrew Tate released from Romanian custody.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of sociopaths being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being sexually assaulted at school (Ofsted figures)
On 27/02/2025 18:59, The Todal wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how
to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it
might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being
sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys,
perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be
some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works.
Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a
bit of urgent resilience training.
We also need some sort of distinction between 'assault', 'harassment',
'violence' and 'abuse'. What do you include in each category please?
What does Ofsted?
You assume, perhaps, that anyone here was involved in collating the
reports and compiling the statistics.
No, I'm just saying that it's vague innuendo if we don't know what it actually means and includes. To use it as an emotive statistic to which
we are supposed to react with 'oooh, how awful' without specifying is somewhat disingenuous.
Maybe you should write to Mr Grab-em-by-the-Pussy and ask him for his
opinion, and for an explanation of why the USA has contrived to get
Andrew Tate released from Romanian custody.
It's got nothing to do with them, but only with those who make such
possibly hugely exaggerated arguments. They need to come clean and tell
us exactly what they mean.
On 27 Feb 2025 at 21:08:33 GMT, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 27/02/2025 18:59, The Todal wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how >>>>>> to beI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it >>>>>> might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being
sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, >>>>> perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be >>>>> some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. >>>>> Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a
bit of urgent resilience training.
We also need some sort of distinction between 'assault', 'harassment', >>>> 'violence' and 'abuse'. What do you include in each category please?
What does Ofsted?
You assume, perhaps, that anyone here was involved in collating the
reports and compiling the statistics.
No, I'm just saying that it's vague innuendo if we don't know what it
actually means and includes. To use it as an emotive statistic to which
we are supposed to react with 'oooh, how awful' without specifying is
somewhat disingenuous.
Maybe you should write to Mr Grab-em-by-the-Pussy and ask him for his
opinion, and for an explanation of why the USA has contrived to get
Andrew Tate released from Romanian custody.
It's got nothing to do with them, but only with those who make such
possibly hugely exaggerated arguments. They need to come clean and tell
us exactly what they mean.
The Ofsted report is publicly available; read it if you want to know.
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know
that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that
the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be
capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being
sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures)
79% report it 'happens sometimes between people my age'?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/review-of-sexual-abuse-in- schools-and-colleges/review-of-sexual-abuse-in-schools-and-colleges
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from
being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how to be >>> nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it might >>> even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of sociopaths >> being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, perhaps >> from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got totally the >> wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual sexting, an arm round
the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to snowflakes these days to be
sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a bit of urgent resilience training.
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from
being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how
to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it
might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being
sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys,
perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be
some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works.
Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
There are those who I would be very happy ( now and
when I was a teenager) if they said I had a nice bum, and those who I really would find creepy. And the same with an arm around my shoulder,
and a brief kiss.
Anyone twanging my bra strap would likely get slapped. name calling of
any sort is unacceptable.
Anything "consensual" is hardly an asaault - unless coerced.
And back in the day if we didn't get wolfwhistled we wondered why.
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a
bit of urgent resilience training.
And allowed to kick the guy where it hurts without fear of being charged themselves.
I've compared Rowling to Elon Musk
She is the UK equivalent of the Disney corporation.
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know
that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that
the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be
capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive parents.
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how
to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it
might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being
sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys,
perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be
some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works.
Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I suspect
they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys
and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the
figures do.
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how
to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it
might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being
sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys,
perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be
some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works.
Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I suspect
they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys
and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the
figures do.
But the words used to codify the nature of the interactions matter too.
Not everything is an 'assault'. Not to those who don't have an agenda.
There are those who I would be very happy ( now and when I was a
teenager) if they said I had a nice bum, and those who I really would
find creepy. And the same with an arm around my shoulder, and a brief
kiss.
Anyone twanging my bra strap would likely get slapped. name calling of
any sort is unacceptable.
Anything "consensual" is hardly an asaault - unless coerced.
And back in the day if we didn't get wolfwhistled we wondered why.
Quite. There was some resilience and humour then. And I think you'd probably agree society was rather better for it.
On 28/02/2025 13:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how >>>>>> to beI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it >>>>>> might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being >>>>> sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of
boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may
be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society
works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which
seem to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I
suspect they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between
teenage boys and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who
quote the figures do.
But the words used to codify the nature of the interactions matter
too. Not everything is an 'assault'. Not to those who don't have an
agenda.
There are those who I would be very happy ( now and when I was a
teenager) if they said I had a nice bum, and those who I really
would find creepy. And the same with an arm around my shoulder, and a
brief kiss.
Anyone twanging my bra strap would likely get slapped. name calling
of any sort is unacceptable.
Anything "consensual" is hardly an asaault - unless coerced.
And back in the day if we didn't get wolfwhistled we wondered why.
Quite. There was some resilience and humour then. And I think you'd
probably agree society was rather better for it.
I think you are imagining a scenario in which someone, either OFSTED or
a health and safety officer, is forcing children to complain about
consensual affectionate activities.
I think perhaps you should think how you yourself would feel when you
were a pupil at school if an older boy leered at you, told you that you
had a nice bum, cornered you in corridors and asked you for a kiss,
maybe ran his hand over your leg. And even if you felt flattered and
welcomed these advances, would it make a difference if that person
behaved towards you in that way with some of his friends nearby who were egging him on and sniggering at your reaction?
On 28/02/2025 14:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/02/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know >>>>> that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that >>>>> the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be >>>>> capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive
parents.
That's a strange response to a rather obvious observation.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet was an
uncontrollable psychopath.
That's right - I never have had such a child.
Most older parents with multiple children will state that a child's
behaviour is 70% nature and 30% nurture. A young parent will typically
claim the ratio in reversed where a child's behaviour is formed from 30%
nature and 70% nurture.
Such statistics are wholly specious.
I have met many adults who have had miserable childhoods due to
incompetent or abusive parents. Some of those parents are selfish and narcissistic, putting their own needs before those of their children.
When I occasionally encounter a parent who complains that the child is a narcissist or a psychopath it soon becomes obvious to me that the parent
is seriously deficient in the skills required to be a good parent and probably exercises a malign influence over their child.
On 28/02/2025 13:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how >>>>>> to beI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it >>>>>> might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being
sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, >>>>> perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be >>>>> some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. >>>>> Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I suspect
they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys
and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the
figures do.
Yeah well mutual masturbation by two under sixteens is "sexual assault".
By both parties.
On 28/02/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know
that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that >>>> the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be
capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive
parents.
That's a strange response to a rather obvious observation.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet was an uncontrollable psychopath.
Most older parents with multiple children will state that a child's
behaviour is 70% nature and 30% nurture. A young parent will typically
claim the ratio in reversed where a child's behaviour is formed from 30% nature and 70% nurture.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet
was an uncontrollable psychopath.
On 28/02/2025 18:29, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 13:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how >>>>>>> to beI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it >>>>>>> might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being >>>>>> sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of
boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may
be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society
works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which
seem to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I
suspect they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between
teenage boys and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who
quote the figures do.
But the words used to codify the nature of the interactions matter
too. Not everything is an 'assault'. Not to those who don't have an
agenda.
There are those who I would be very happy ( now and when I was a
teenager) if they said I had a nice bum, and those who I really
would find creepy. And the same with an arm around my shoulder, and a
brief kiss.
Anyone twanging my bra strap would likely get slapped. name calling
of any sort is unacceptable.
Anything "consensual" is hardly an asaault - unless coerced.
And back in the day if we didn't get wolfwhistled we wondered why.
Quite. There was some resilience and humour then. And I think you'd
probably agree society was rather better for it.
I think you are imagining a scenario in which someone, either OFSTED or
a health and safety officer, is forcing children to complain about
consensual affectionate activities.
No, what I'm suggesting is that the kids are asked simple questions
which they probably answer truthfully but then those with an agenda and
a desire to prove sexual assaults/abuse/misbehaviour etc may well
escalate them out of all proportion to prove the point they wanted to
all along.
Not all sexual activity between young people is wrong or even
undesirable. It certainly isn't all 'assault', nor is it necessarily
abuse, coercion or harassment, which are all terms that have been
variously used by contributors here. It's nuanced. Not only do the
various terms used need to be defined but the numbers need to be more specific too or it's impossible to arrive at a realistic view.
I think perhaps you should think how you yourself would feel when you
were a pupil at school if an older boy leered at you, told you that you
had a nice bum, cornered you in corridors and asked you for a kiss,
maybe ran his hand over your leg. And even if you felt flattered and
welcomed these advances, would it make a difference if that person
behaved towards you in that way with some of his friends nearby who were
egging him on and sniggering at your reaction?
It's all a matter of context, which the Ofsted report doesn't seem to
have considered at all, lumping everything together under the most
extreme classification 'sexual assault', thereby giving a totally false impression.
On 28 Feb 2025 at 17:45:54 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2025 13:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how >>>>>>> to beI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it >>>>>>> might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being >>>>>> sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, >>>>>> perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be >>>>>> some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. >>>>>> Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem >>>>> to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I suspect
they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys
and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the
figures do.
Yeah well mutual masturbation by two under sixteens is "sexual assault".
By both parties.
That is actually the law; though not often prosecuted!
On 28/02/2025 19:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 17:45:54 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 28/02/2025 13:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men >>>>>>>> fromI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how >>>>>>>> to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it >>>>>>>> might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being >>>>>>> sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, >>>>>>> perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be >>>>>>> some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. >>>>>>> Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a >>>>>> nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>> sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem >>>>>> to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I suspect >>>> they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys >>>> and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the
figures do.
Yeah well mutual masturbation by two under sixteens is "sexual assault". >>> By both parties.
That is actually the law; though not often prosecuted!
Doesn't that make us all criminals then? Or at least those who are not complete nerds?
On 28 Feb 2025 19:17:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 18:22:28 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2025 14:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/02/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know >>>>>>> that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that >>>>>>> the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be >>>>>>> capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive >>>>> parents.
That's a strange response to a rather obvious observation.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet was an >>>> uncontrollable psychopath.
That's right - I never have had such a child.
Most older parents with multiple children will state that a child's
behaviour is 70% nature and 30% nurture. A young parent will typically >>>> claim the ratio in reversed where a child's behaviour is formed from 30% >>>> nature and 70% nurture.
Such statistics are wholly specious.
I have met many adults who have had miserable childhoods due to
incompetent or abusive parents. Some of those parents are selfish and
narcissistic, putting their own needs before those of their children.
When I occasionally encounter a parent who complains that the child is a >>> narcissist or a psychopath it soon becomes obvious to me that the parent >>> is seriously deficient in the skills required to be a good parent and
probably exercises a malign influence over their child.
I think it would not be credible to say that very good parents would never >> bring up a child who was psychopathic from teenage years on. The best studies
to clarify this are twin studies - I don't know if they have been done on
psychopathy.
I gave a link summarising the findings but Todal chose to snip it out,
maybe he's had enough of experts.
Here it is again:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/basics/nature-vs-nurture
Nor do I claim to know how much is genetic and how much
upbringing. But I'm pretty sure it is not *all* upbringing.
On 28 Feb 2025 at 18:22:28 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2025 14:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/02/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>> wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know >>>>>> that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that >>>>>> the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be >>>>>> capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive >>>> parents.
That's a strange response to a rather obvious observation.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet was an >>> uncontrollable psychopath.
That's right - I never have had such a child.
Most older parents with multiple children will state that a child's
behaviour is 70% nature and 30% nurture. A young parent will typically
claim the ratio in reversed where a child's behaviour is formed from 30% >>> nature and 70% nurture.
Such statistics are wholly specious.
I have met many adults who have had miserable childhoods due to
incompetent or abusive parents. Some of those parents are selfish and
narcissistic, putting their own needs before those of their children.
When I occasionally encounter a parent who complains that the child is a
narcissist or a psychopath it soon becomes obvious to me that the parent
is seriously deficient in the skills required to be a good parent and
probably exercises a malign influence over their child.
I think it would not be credible to say that very good parents would never bring up a child who was psychopathic from teenage years on. The best studies to clarify this are twin studies - I don't know if they have been done on psychopathy. Nor do I claim to know how much is genetic and how much upbringing. But I'm pretty sure it is not *all* upbringing.
On 28/02/2025 18:29, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 13:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school aboutI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
how to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think
it might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report
being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of
boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may
be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society
works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that
79% that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which
seem to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I
suspect they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between
teenage boys and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those
who quote the figures do.
But the words used to codify the nature of the interactions matter
too. Not everything is an 'assault'. Not to those who don't have an
agenda.
There are those who I would be very happy ( now and when I was a
teenager) if they said I had a nice bum, and those who I really
would find creepy. And the same with an arm around my shoulder, and
a brief kiss.
Anyone twanging my bra strap would likely get slapped. name calling
of any sort is unacceptable.
Anything "consensual" is hardly an asaault - unless coerced.
And back in the day if we didn't get wolfwhistled we wondered why.
Quite. There was some resilience and humour then. And I think you'd
probably agree society was rather better for it.
I think you are imagining a scenario in which someone, either OFSTED
or a health and safety officer, is forcing children to complain about
consensual affectionate activities.
No, what I'm suggesting is that the kids are asked simple questions
which they probably answer truthfully but then those with an agenda and
a desire to prove sexual assaults/abuse/misbehaviour etc may well
escalate them out of all proportion to prove the point they wanted to
all along.
Not all sexual activity between young people is wrong or even
undesirable. It certainly isn't all 'assault', nor is it necessarily
abuse, coercion or harassment, which are all terms that have been
variously used by contributors here. It's nuanced. Not only do the various terms used need to be defined but the numbers need to be more specific too or it's impossible to arrive at a realistic view.
I think perhaps you should think how you yourself would feel when you
were a pupil at school if an older boy leered at you, told you that
you had a nice bum, cornered you in corridors and asked you for a
kiss, maybe ran his hand over your leg. And even if you felt flattered
and welcomed these advances, would it make a difference if that person
behaved towards you in that way with some of his friends nearby who
were egging him on and sniggering at your reaction?
It's all a matter of context, which the Ofsted report doesn't seem to
have considered at all, lumping everything together under the most
extreme classification 'sexual assault', thereby giving a totally false impression.
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I suspect
they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys
and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the
figures do.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 13:16:57 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I suspect
they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys
and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the
figures do.
Given that you seem to eager to comment on the report, I would have thought you might at least have made the effort to read it. Had you done so, you would have seen that it does, indeed, state that context matters, and that not all sexual behaviour is equal. It categorises sexual behaviour by children and young people across five levels: Normal, Inappropriate, Problematic, Abusive and Violent, and makes it clear that fully consensual, developmentally-appropriate sexual activity is not abusive.
On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 13:16:57 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I suspect
they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys
and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the
figures do.
Given that you seem to eager to comment on the report, I would have thought you might at least have made the effort to read it.
Had you done so, you
would have seen that it does, indeed, state that context matters, and that not all sexual behaviour is equal. It categorises sexual behaviour by children and young people across five levels: Normal, Inappropriate, Problematic, Abusive and Violent, and makes it clear that fully consensual, developmentally-appropriate sexual activity is not abusive.
On 28/02/2025 19:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 18:22:28 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2025 14:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/02/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know >>>>>>> that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that >>>>>>> the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be >>>>>>> capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive >>>>> parents.
That's a strange response to a rather obvious observation.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet was an >>>> uncontrollable psychopath.
That's right - I never have had such a child.
Most older parents with multiple children will state that a child's
behaviour is 70% nature and 30% nurture. A young parent will typically >>>> claim the ratio in reversed where a child's behaviour is formed from 30% >>>> nature and 70% nurture.
Such statistics are wholly specious.
I have met many adults who have had miserable childhoods due to
incompetent or abusive parents. Some of those parents are selfish and
narcissistic, putting their own needs before those of their children.
When I occasionally encounter a parent who complains that the child is a >>> narcissist or a psychopath it soon becomes obvious to me that the parent >>> is seriously deficient in the skills required to be a good parent and
probably exercises a malign influence over their child.
I think it would not be credible to say that very good parents would never >> bring up a child who was psychopathic from teenage years on. The best studies
to clarify this are twin studies - I don't know if they have been done on
psychopathy. Nor do I claim to know how much is genetic and how much
upbringing. But I'm pretty sure it is not *all* upbringing.
My phrase was "a parent who complains that the child is a narcissist or
a psychopath", not "a parent of a narcissist or a psychopath".
Do you see the difference?
Parents do have difficult children. Good parents are loyal and
supportive to their children, rather than judgmental, hostile and
belittling.
On 28/02/2025 18:51, Norman Wells wrote:
Not all sexual activity between young people is wrong or even
undesirable. It certainly isn't all 'assault', nor is it necessarily
abuse, coercion or harassment, which are all terms that have been
variously used by contributors here. It's nuanced. Not only do the
various terms used need to be defined but the numbers need to be more
specific too or it's impossible to arrive at a realistic view.
I think perhaps you should think how you yourself would feel when you
were a pupil at school if an older boy leered at you, told you that
you had a nice bum, cornered you in corridors and asked you for a
kiss, maybe ran his hand over your leg. And even if you felt
flattered and welcomed these advances, would it make a difference if
that person behaved towards you in that way with some of his friends
nearby who were egging him on and sniggering at your reaction?
It's all a matter of context, which the Ofsted report doesn't seem to
have considered at all, lumping everything together under the most
extreme classification 'sexual assault', thereby giving a totally
false impression.
The context is bullying of one form or another, which the victims cannot always escape from and which can have a devastating impact on their
lives and future relationships.
You can speak of "resilience", but that's like Trump telling Zelensky to surrender and to resign as leader because the bully holds all the cards.
On 28/02/2025 21:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2025 19:18, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 17:45:54 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 28/02/2025 13:16, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/02/2025 12:08, kat wrote:
On 27/02/2025 16:47, Norman Wells wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men >>>>>>>>> from
being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how >>>>>>>>> to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it >>>>>>>>> might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure >>>>>>>>> women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of >>>>>>>> sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being >>>>>>>> sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of >>>>>>>> boys,
perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got >>>>>>>> totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there
may be
some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society
works.
Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a >>>>>>> nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>> sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which >>>>>>> seem
to snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
Context matters.
I agree, but I don't think that came into Ofsted's equation. I
suspect
they rather unthinkingly regard every interaction between teenage boys >>>>> and girls as 'sexual assault'. Either that, or those who quote the >>>>> figures do.
Yeah well mutual masturbation by two under sixteens is "sexual
assault".
By both parties.
That is actually the law; though not often prosecuted!
Doesn't that make us all criminals then? Or at least those who are
not complete nerds?
If you decide to reveal aspects of your past sexual activity don't be surprised if others are judgmental about that.
Nerds, you say? I think you probably believe that red-blooded men prove
their virility by screwing or fingering as many virgins as possible.
Even if these are pleasant memories for you, I regard the attitude as
rather disgusting.
On 28/02/2025 19:17, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 18:22:28 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 28/02/2025 14:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/02/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know >>>>>>> that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, >>>>>>> that
the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be >>>>>>> capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive >>>>> parents.
That's a strange response to a rather obvious observation.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet
was an
uncontrollable psychopath.
That's right - I never have had such a child.
Most older parents with multiple children will state that a child's
behaviour is 70% nature and 30% nurture. A young parent will typically >>>> claim the ratio in reversed where a child's behaviour is formed from
30%
nature and 70% nurture.
Such statistics are wholly specious.
I have met many adults who have had miserable childhoods due to
incompetent or abusive parents. Some of those parents are selfish and
narcissistic, putting their own needs before those of their children.
When I occasionally encounter a parent who complains that the child is a >>> narcissist or a psychopath it soon becomes obvious to me that the parent >>> is seriously deficient in the skills required to be a good parent and
probably exercises a malign influence over their child.
I think it would not be credible to say that very good parents would
never
bring up a child who was psychopathic from teenage years on. The best
studies
to clarify this are twin studies - I don't know if they have been done on
psychopathy. Nor do I claim to know how much is genetic and how much
upbringing. But I'm pretty sure it is not *all* upbringing.
My phrase was "a parent who complains that the child is a narcissist or
a psychopath", not "a parent of a narcissist or a psychopath".
Do you see the difference?
Parents do have difficult children. Good parents are loyal and
supportive to their children, rather than judgmental, hostile and
belittling.
"Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:vpsfvb$3mm00$1@dont-email.me...
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet
was an uncontrollable psychopath.
Timmy ! How many more times do you need to be told ?
No more heads and body parts in the freezer, as you're taking up
all of the space.!
On 28/02/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know
that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that >>>> the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be
capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child.
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive
parents.
That's a strange response to a rather obvious observation.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet was an uncontrollable psychopath.
Most older parents with multiple children will state that a child's
behaviour is 70% nature and 30% nurture. A young parent will typically
claim the ratio in reversed where a child's behaviour is formed from 30% nature and 70% nurture.
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from
being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how to be >>>> nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it might >>>> even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of sociopaths >>> being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got totally the >>> wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be some >>> value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having
breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 10:46:27 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 07:27, Martin Harran wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 19:17:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Feb 2025 at 18:22:28 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 28/02/2025 14:07, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/02/2025 09:48, The Todal wrote:
On 28/02/2025 07:37, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 12:09:44 +0000, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
[snip for focus]
If you hear an adult say that their child is sly or devious you know >>>>>>>>> that they have a very dysfunctional relationship with that child, that
the child is probably very unhappy and that the parent might even be >>>>>>>>> capable of violence towards the child.
WOW, what a condemnation of parents who have a troublesome child. >>>>>>>>
Gosh, what a condemnation of children who have incompetent and abusive >>>>>>> parents.
That's a strange response to a rather obvious observation.
You have clearly not had a problem child who you loved dearly yet was an >>>>>> uncontrollable psychopath.
That's right - I never have had such a child.
Most older parents with multiple children will state that a child's >>>>>> behaviour is 70% nature and 30% nurture. A young parent will typically >>>>>> claim the ratio in reversed where a child's behaviour is formed from 30% >>>>>> nature and 70% nurture.
Such statistics are wholly specious.
I have met many adults who have had miserable childhoods due to
incompetent or abusive parents. Some of those parents are selfish and >>>>> narcissistic, putting their own needs before those of their children. >>>>>
When I occasionally encounter a parent who complains that the child is a >>>>> narcissist or a psychopath it soon becomes obvious to me that the parent >>>>> is seriously deficient in the skills required to be a good parent and >>>>> probably exercises a malign influence over their child.
I think it would not be credible to say that very good parents would never >>>> bring up a child who was psychopathic from teenage years on. The best studies
to clarify this are twin studies - I don't know if they have been done on >>>> psychopathy.
I gave a link summarising the findings but Todal chose to snip it out,
maybe he's had enough of experts.
Here it is again:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/ie/basics/nature-vs-nurture
It's irrelevant.
It directly contradicts your claim that adults are usually the
product of their upbringing.
Nor do I claim to know how much is genetic and how much
upbringing. But I'm pretty sure it is not *all* upbringing.
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how to be >>>>>> nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it might >>>>>> even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be some >>>>> value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a nice >>>> bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual sexting, >>>> an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a bit >>>> of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having
breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
*We* weren't discussing anything about sexual assault.
I'm simply
challenging your total lack of empathy for young girls by suggesting
they should just grow a pair of balls …. oops, I meant get "resilience training".
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> >>>>>> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school aboutI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
how to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think
it might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report
being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of
boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may
be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society
works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a
nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of
a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having
breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
*We* weren't discussing anything about sexual assault.
Well, *you* may not have been, but in that case you couldn't have been following the thread, which was.
I'm simply
challenging your total lack of empathy for young girls by suggesting
they should just grow a pair of balls …. oops, I meant get "resilience
training".
What do you think is meant by 'If it does' in my suggestion above?
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
I wonder whether you somehow expressed yourself badly because I thought what you
meant was that only "snowflakes" could interpret wolf-whistling, saying someone
has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, a brief kiss (etc) as sexual assaults.
And I suppose you would define "snowflakes" as people who feel hurt and upset when a more sensible and normal person (a Norman or a Norma) would think nothing
of it and even preen themselves at having had a compliment.
So go on, describe how you think you would feel if you were 11, a little boy called Norman in a boys school, and a 13 year old boy kept staring at you and telling you that you have a nice bum and then kissing you on the lips. I expect
your private fantasy is that it would be a girl doing this but my described scenario more accurately shows the balance of power and the uncertainty about whether you can object to such advances without making the situation worse.
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>> wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal"
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men >>>>>>>>> from
being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about >>>>>>>>> how to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think >>>>>>>>> it might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure >>>>>>>>> women.
I don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of >>>>>>>> sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report >>>>>>>> being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of >>>>>>>> boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got >>>>>>>> totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there
may be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society
works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need
of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun to a >>>>>> young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having
breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
*We* weren't discussing anything about sexual assault.
Well, *you* may not have been, but in that case you couldn't have
been following the thread, which was.
I'm simply
challenging your total lack of empathy for young girls by suggesting
they should just grow a pair of balls …. oops, I meant get "resilience >>>> training".
What do you think is meant by 'If it does' in my suggestion above?
I wonder whether you somehow expressed yourself badly because I
thought what you meant was that only "snowflakes" could interpret
wolf- whistling, saying someone has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap,
a brief kiss (etc) as sexual assaults.
What I said was perfectly clear. I was trying to establish whether all
of what I set out were sexual assaults. But no-one seems at all willing
to commit themselves.
So, I'll ask you. Are they?
And was the still unreferenced 'Ofsted figures' report correct to refer
to them as such or was it actually being rather alarmist and manipulative?
And I suppose you would define "snowflakes" as people who feel hurt
and upset when a more sensible and normal person (a Norman or a Norma)
would think nothing of it and even preen themselves at having had a
compliment.
I use the standard definition:
"a slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly
emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions".
And look, I'll even give a link to avoid ambiguity and show how easy it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Snowflake_(slang)#:~:text=Snowflake%20is%20a%20derogatory%20slang,to%20deal%20with%20opposing%20opinions.
So go on, describe how you think you would feel if you were 11, a
little boy called Norman in a boys school, and a 13 year old boy kept
staring at you and telling you that you have a nice bum and then
kissing you on the lips. I expect your private fantasy is that it
would be a girl doing this but my described scenario more accurately
shows the balance of power and the uncertainty about whether you can
object to such advances without making the situation worse.
I dealt with that earlier. Now you're just being repetitive and 'not new'.
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
And I suppose you would define "snowflakes" as people who feel hurt and
upset when a more sensible and normal person (a Norman or a Norma) would
think nothing of it and even preen themselves at having had a compliment.
I use the standard definition:
"a slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly
emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions".
And look, I'll even give a link to avoid ambiguity and show how easy it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)#:~:text=Snowflake%20is%20a%20derogatory%20slang,to%20deal%20with%20opposing%20opinions.
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
I wonder whether you somehow expressed yourself badly because I
thought what you meant was that only "snowflakes" could interpret
wolf-whistling, saying someone has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, a
brief kiss (etc) as sexual assaults.
And I suppose you would define "snowflakes" as people who feel hurt
and upset when a more sensible and normal person (a Norman or a Norma)
would think nothing of it and even preen themselves at having had a
compliment.
So go on, describe how you think you would feel if you were 11, a
little boy called Norman in a boys school, and a 13 year old boy kept
staring at you and telling you that you have a nice bum and then
kissing you on the lips. I expect your private fantasy is that it
would be a girl doing this but my described scenario more accurately
shows the balance of power and the uncertainty about whether you can
object to such advances without making the situation worse.
Here's a suggestion - separate schools for girls and boys giving both
sexes a safe environment while they ar esupposed to be learning. That
would solve the Ofsted thing.
Of course it then brings us back to gender recognition and which school should trans girls go to...
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal"
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men >>>>>>>> fromI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of
being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about >>>>>>>> how to be
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think >>>>>>>> it might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>>>
sociopaths
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report
being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of
boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got
totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may >>>>>>> be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society
works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a >>>>>> nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of >>>>>> a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun to a >>>>> young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having
breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
*We* weren't discussing anything about sexual assault.
Well, *you* may not have been, but in that case you couldn't have been
following the thread, which was.
I'm simply
challenging your total lack of empathy for young girls by suggesting
they should just grow a pair of balls …. oops, I meant get "resilience >>> training".
What do you think is meant by 'If it does' in my suggestion above?
I wonder whether you somehow expressed yourself badly because I thought
what you meant was that only "snowflakes" could interpret wolf-
whistling, saying someone has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, a brief
kiss (etc) as sexual assaults.
And I suppose you would define "snowflakes" as people who feel hurt and
upset when a more sensible and normal person (a Norman or a Norma) would think nothing of it and even preen themselves at having had a compliment.
So go on, describe how you think you would feel if you were 11, a little
boy called Norman in a boys school, and a 13 year old boy kept staring
at you and telling you that you have a nice bum and then kissing you on
the lips. I expect your private fantasy is that it would be a girl doing
this but my described scenario more accurately shows the balance of
power and the uncertainty about whether you can object to such advances without making the situation worse.
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because
it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for
yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because
it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as
"coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable phrase).
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>> 79% that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>> a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>> sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>> of a bit of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun to a >>>>>>> young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
*We* weren't discussing anything about sexual assault.
Well, *you* may not have been, but in that case you couldn't have
been following the thread, which was.
I'm simply challenging your total lack of empathy for young girls by suggesting
they should just grow a pair of balls …. oops, I meant get "resilience >>>>> training".
What do you think is meant by 'If it does' in my suggestion above?
I wonder whether you somehow expressed yourself badly because I
thought what you meant was that only "snowflakes" could interpret
wolf- whistling, saying someone has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap,
a brief kiss (etc) as sexual assaults.
What I said was perfectly clear. I was trying to establish whether
all of what I set out were sexual assaults. But no-one seems at all
willing to commit themselves.
So, I'll ask you. Are they?
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because
it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
And was the still unreferenced 'Ofsted figures' report correct to
refer to them as such or was it actually being rather alarmist and
manipulative?
And I suppose you would define "snowflakes" as people who feel hurt
and upset when a more sensible and normal person (a Norman or a
Norma) would think nothing of it and even preen themselves at having
had a compliment.
I use the standard definition:
"a slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense
of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly
emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions".
And look, I'll even give a link to avoid ambiguity and show how easy
it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Snowflake_(slang)#:~:text=Snowflake%20is%20a%20derogatory%20slang,to%20deal%20with%20opposing%20opinions.
So, a derogatory, dismissive, mocking word for people whose feelings
have been hurt. And as I said, it implies that normal people would not complain of hurt feelings in that situation. Which can only mean that "snowflake" is used by the sort of people who cannot empathise with
other people.
So go on, describe how you think you would feel if you were 11, a
little boy called Norman in a boys school, and a 13 year old boy kept
staring at you and telling you that you have a nice bum and then
kissing you on the lips. I expect your private fantasy is that it
would be a girl doing this but my described scenario more accurately
shows the balance of power and the uncertainty about whether you can
object to such advances without making the situation worse.
I dealt with that earlier. Now you're just being repetitive and 'not
new'.
You didn't deal with that at all.
On 2 Mar 2025 at 17:53:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for
yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because >>> it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are
equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as
"coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable
phrase).
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for
yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because >>> it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are
equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their permission?
On 2 Mar 2025 at 17:53:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are
equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as
"coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable
phrase).
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to >do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably >accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly >absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:21:45 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how to beI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of sociopaths
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>>>
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a nice >>>>>> bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual sexting, >>>>>> an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a bit >>>>>> of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun to a >>>>> young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having
breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
*We* weren't discussing anything about sexual assault.
Well, *you* may not have been, but in that case you couldn't have been
following the thread, which was.
I'm simply
challenging your total lack of empathy for young girls by suggesting
they should just grow a pair of balls …. oops, I meant get "resilience >>> training".
What do you think is meant by 'If it does' in my suggestion above?
It's not always easy to see what you mean by anything but what that
followed by "it's the girls who are in need of a bit of urgent
resilience training" suggests to me is that you regard wolf-whistling,
saying someone has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised
name-calling, consensual sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief
kiss as nothing particularly serious and girls need to learn to just
put up with that sort of behaviour.
BTW, you keep asking others whether those things count as sexual
assault,
the standard for which you have never defined, so what is
*your* standard for it?
On 02/03/2025 18:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to >> do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably
accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly
absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
It, like lots of things, is "naughty", but there's no way it should be illegal.
On 2 Mar 2025 18:19:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 at 17:53:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are
equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>> (as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as
"coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable
phrase).
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to >> do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably
accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly
absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
There are, broadly speaking, two principal objections to criminalising upskirting. The first is that where it addresses a real problem it merely duplicates existing offences, while at the same time it risks criminalising activity where the exposure is merely incidental or trivial (eg, the Marilyn Monroe on a grating pose, or where someone wearing a short skirt walks above the viewpoint of people below). The second objection is that upskirting is perfectly harmless and anyone who gets upset about being upskirted is, to
use the vernacular, a snowflake.
The first objection is expressed by those who are concerned with legislative mission creep and lack confidence in the ability of the government to draft robust legislation. The second objection is expressed by misogynists, perverts and those who profit from misogynists and perverts.
Mark
On 02/03/2025 13:38, kat wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
I wonder whether you somehow expressed yourself badly because I thought what
you meant was that only "snowflakes" could interpret wolf-whistling, saying >>> someone has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, a brief kiss (etc) as sexual >>> assaults.
And I suppose you would define "snowflakes" as people who feel hurt and upset
when a more sensible and normal person (a Norman or a Norma) would think >>> nothing of it and even preen themselves at having had a compliment.
So go on, describe how you think you would feel if you were 11, a little boy
called Norman in a boys school, and a 13 year old boy kept staring at you and
telling you that you have a nice bum and then kissing you on the lips. I >>> expect your private fantasy is that it would be a girl doing this but my >>> described scenario more accurately shows the balance of power and the
uncertainty about whether you can object to such advances without making the
situation worse.
Here's a suggestion - separate schools for girls and boys giving both sexes a
safe environment while they ar esupposed to be learning. That would solve the
Ofsted thing.
It might help female pupils feel safer and better able to concentrate on their
work rather than be distracted by inappropriate behaviour. I don't know how often girls harass each other in schools. I should think that bullying still does take place in single-sex schools and traditionally has been ignored by staff.
So "solve" is probably too optimistic. Teaching children to be sensitive and considerate can only go so far. Children must be able to report bullying and to
see that firm action is then taken.
Of course it then brings us back to gender recognition and which school should
trans girls go to...
There is little doubt that LGBT children are generally bullied more than average. Effeminate boys are not seen by girls as threatening and are often targets for bullying.
On 2 Mar 2025 at 20:35:34 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 18:19:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 at 17:53:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>>
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>> (as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as
"coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable >>>> phrase).
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to
do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably
accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly >>> absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
There are, broadly speaking, two principal objections to criminalising
upskirting. The first is that where it addresses a real problem it merely
duplicates existing offences, while at the same time it risks criminalising >> activity where the exposure is merely incidental or trivial (eg, the Marilyn >> Monroe on a grating pose, or where someone wearing a short skirt walks above >> the viewpoint of people below). The second objection is that upskirting is >> perfectly harmless and anyone who gets upset about being upskirted is, to
use the vernacular, a snowflake.
The first objection is expressed by those who are concerned with legislative >> mission creep and lack confidence in the ability of the government to draft >> robust legislation. The second objection is expressed by misogynists,
perverts and those who profit from misogynists and perverts.
Mark
While subjectively I agree with you, should we not account for the possibility
that doctrinaire liberatarians may strongly believe that insufficient harm is involved to warrant making it a criminal offence? (Though actually I believe they are simply unable to put themselves in the place of many women to whom the crime is actually quite harmful.) Is that not a valid point of view?
Advocating for a view I do not hold; although generally I think we should think twice before inventing new crimes, I agree with you that this is valid one.
On 2 Mar 2025 at 20:35:34 GMT, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
There are, broadly speaking, two principal objections to criminalising
upskirting. The first is that where it addresses a real problem it merely
duplicates existing offences, while at the same time it risks criminalising >> activity where the exposure is merely incidental or trivial (eg, the Marilyn >> Monroe on a grating pose, or where someone wearing a short skirt walks above >> the viewpoint of people below). The second objection is that upskirting is >> perfectly harmless and anyone who gets upset about being upskirted is, to
use the vernacular, a snowflake.
The first objection is expressed by those who are concerned with legislative >> mission creep and lack confidence in the ability of the government to draft >> robust legislation. The second objection is expressed by misogynists,
perverts and those who profit from misogynists and perverts.
While subjectively I agree with you, should we not account for the possibility >that doctrinaire liberatarians may strongly believe that insufficient harm is >involved to warrant making it a criminal offence? (Though actually I believe >they are simply unable to put themselves in the place of many women to whom >the crime is actually quite harmful.) Is that not a valid point of view?
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:vq2bui$tjqk$1@dont-email.me...
On 02/03/2025 18:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to
do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably
accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly >>> absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
It, like lots of things, is "naughty", but there's no way it should be illegal.
Next Up.
No 3. Flashing
On 2 Mar 2025 at 20:35:34 GMT, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 18:19:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 at 17:53:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>>
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>> (as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as
"coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable >>>> phrase).
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to
do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably
accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly >>> absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
There are, broadly speaking, two principal objections to criminalising
upskirting. The first is that where it addresses a real problem it merely
duplicates existing offences, while at the same time it risks criminalising >> activity where the exposure is merely incidental or trivial (eg, the Marilyn >> Monroe on a grating pose, or where someone wearing a short skirt walks above >> the viewpoint of people below). The second objection is that upskirting is >> perfectly harmless and anyone who gets upset about being upskirted is, to
use the vernacular, a snowflake.
The first objection is expressed by those who are concerned with legislative >> mission creep and lack confidence in the ability of the government to draft >> robust legislation. The second objection is expressed by misogynists,
perverts and those who profit from misogynists and perverts.
While subjectively I agree with you, should we not account for the possibility
that doctrinaire liberatarians may strongly believe that insufficient harm is involved to warrant making it a criminal offence? (Though actually I believe they are simply unable to put themselves in the place of many women to whom the crime is actually quite harmful.) Is that not a valid point of view?
Advocating for a view I do not hold; although generally I think we should think twice before inventing new crimes, I agree with you that this is valid one.
On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 20:35:34 +0000, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 18:19:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 at 17:53:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>>
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>> (as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as
"coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable >>>> phrase).
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to
do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably
accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly >>> absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
There are, broadly speaking, two principal objections to criminalising
upskirting. The first is that where it addresses a real problem it merely
duplicates existing offences, while at the same time it risks criminalising >> activity where the exposure is merely incidental or trivial (eg, the Marilyn >> Monroe on a grating pose, or where someone wearing a short skirt walks above >> the viewpoint of people below).
Has anyone ever been found guilty or even charged where the exposure
was incidental or trivial?
On 02/03/2025 22:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 at 20:35:34 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 18:19:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 at 17:53:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>>> (as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as
"coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable >>>>> phrase).
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to
do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably
accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly >>>> absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
There are, broadly speaking, two principal objections to criminalising
upskirting. The first is that where it addresses a real problem it merely >>> duplicates existing offences, while at the same time it risks criminalising >>> activity where the exposure is merely incidental or trivial (eg, the Marilyn
Monroe on a grating pose, or where someone wearing a short skirt walks above
the viewpoint of people below). The second objection is that upskirting is >>> perfectly harmless and anyone who gets upset about being upskirted is, to >>> use the vernacular, a snowflake.
The first objection is expressed by those who are concerned with legislative
mission creep and lack confidence in the ability of the government to draft >>> robust legislation. The second objection is expressed by misogynists,
perverts and those who profit from misogynists and perverts.
Mark
While subjectively I agree with you, should we not account for the possibility
that doctrinaire liberatarians may strongly believe that insufficient harm is
involved to warrant making it a criminal offence? (Though actually I believe >> they are simply unable to put themselves in the place of many women to whom >> the crime is actually quite harmful.) Is that not a valid point of view?
Advocating for a view I do not hold; although generally I think we should
think twice before inventing new crimes, I agree with you that this is valid >> one.
I expect men who wear kilts might not like it either.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
Also he's just flat wrong. Computing used to be dominated by women,Women plugging in leads in Colossus.
until post WWII.
While the men got on with the real worl in the huts
Name just *one* female cryptographer at Bletchley.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 20:28:23 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 16:15, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 12:21:45 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 27/02/2025 12:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Feb 2025 at 12:15:15 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
It just seems to me that the notion that you can stop young men from >>>>>>>>>> being predatory sex offenders by teaching them in school about how to beI don't think the aim is to stop the relatively small number of sociopaths
nice to women, is just an implausible fantasy. In fact, I think it might
even teach them how to take advantage of vulnerable insecure women. >>>>>>>>>
being sociopaths. But when 79% of schoolgirls over 13 report being sexually
assaulted at school (Ofsted figures) it is clear that a lot of boys, perhaps
from peer pressure and Andrew Tate type "influencers", have got totally the
wrong idea of how girls and women want to be approached there may be some
value in telling them a more realistic version of how society works. Or should
work.
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that 79% >>>>>>>> that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun to a >>>>>>> young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
*We* weren't discussing anything about sexual assault.
Well, *you* may not have been, but in that case you couldn't have been >>>> following the thread, which was.
I'm simply
challenging your total lack of empathy for young girls by suggesting >>>>> they should just grow a pair of balls …. oops, I meant get "resilience >>>>> training".
What do you think is meant by 'If it does' in my suggestion above?
It's not always easy to see what you mean by anything but what that
followed by "it's the girls who are in need of a bit of urgent
resilience training" suggests to me is that you regard wolf-whistling,
saying someone has a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised
name-calling, consensual sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief
kiss as nothing particularly serious and girls need to learn to just
put up with that sort of behaviour.
No, they need to learn to deal with most of it. That way, they'll be a
bit better prepared to cope with life out in the big wide world which
will not be the wishy-washy jazz hands safe zone some educationalists
and wet liberals think schools should be. The current tendency is to
infantilise them until well into their 20s when they really should be
adults.
No, the current tendency is not to expect young girls or any women to
put up with obnoxious behaviour from males.
Resilience is a quality they'll need, and it's best in my view if they
gain it at school.
BTW, you keep asking others whether those things count as sexual
assault,
Yes, they're the ones relying on the Ofsted report to make their points,
especially Mr Hayter who quoted with obvious enthusiasm that '79% of
schoolgirls over 13 report being sexually assaulted at school'. It's
not for me to define what that honestly means, but for him and others
who have swallowed it whole despite its not standing up to scrutiny.
the standard for which you have never defined, so what is
*your* standard for it?
Rather more substantial than others here who think everything is a
sexual assault.
IOW, you don't have a standard or at least not one you are willing to
share.
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
And I suppose you would define "snowflakes" as people who feel hurt and
upset when a more sensible and normal person (a Norman or a Norma) would >>> think nothing of it and even preen themselves at having had a compliment.
I use the standard definition:
"a slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of
uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly
emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions".
And look, I'll even give a link to avoid ambiguity and show how easy it is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)#:~:text=Snowflake%20is%20a%20derogatory%20slang,to%20deal%20with%20opposing%20opinions.
This might be a better url for that page:
<https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_(slang)>
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal.
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for
yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because >>> it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are
equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their permission?
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread >>>>>>>>>> about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening >>>>>>>>>> their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for >>>> yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because >>>> it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are
equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph?
On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 20:35:34 +0000, Mark Goodge ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
There are, broadly speaking, two principal objections to criminalising >>upskirting. The first is that where it addresses a real problem it merely >>duplicates existing offences, while at the same time it risks criminalising >>activity where the exposure is merely incidental or trivial (eg, the Marilyn >>Monroe on a grating pose, or where someone wearing a short skirt walks above >>the viewpoint of people below).
Has anyone ever been found guilty or even charged where the exposure
was incidental or trivial?
On 3 Mar 2025 at 16:03:18 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for >>>>> yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because >>>>> it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph?
No, just photography of things people can't reasonably be expected to have deliberately put on public display. That includes high power telephoto lens pictures of private premises visible from a public place, as well as upskirting.
I agree, any restriction of photography of what we can freely see in public places would be unacceptable.
On 03/03/2025 17:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Mar 2025 at 16:03:18 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting >>>>>> strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your >>>>>> curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for >>>>>> yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because >>>>>> it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves? >>>>>>
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour? >>>>>
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>>
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph?
No, just photography of things people can't reasonably be expected to have >> deliberately put on public display. That includes high power telephoto lens >> pictures of private premises visible from a public place, as well as
upskirting.
I agree, any restriction of photography of what we can freely see in public >> places would be unacceptable.
If someone on a tube train took a photo of you picking your nose and
then uploaded it to a website entitled Ugly People On Trains, I think
you'd be angry and upset but I doubt if you'd have any redress.
It is perhaps rather counter-intuitive that a picture of a woman's
underwear from which she cannot be identified can be unlawful because it
is upskirting.
I daresay the law might still be in flux. One of the main Court of
Appeal decisions involved no less a person than JK Rowling. She sued as Joanne Murray.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html
quotes
Dr Murray was pushing a buggy with David in it. The respondent ('BPL')
took a colour photograph of the family group which was subsequently
published in the Sunday Express magazine on 3 April 2005... In the
action David asserts an infringement of his right to respect for his
privacy contrary to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights ('the Convention'). He also puts his claim under the Data Protection Act
1998 ('the DPA').
It is in our opinion of some importance that the action was brought by David's parents only on behalf of David and not on their own behalf. Mr Spearman submits that that fact was not sufficiently recognised by the
judge, whom he submits treated the action as if it was brought for the benefit of both the parents and the child. We accept that submission. It
does seem to us that there are parts of the judge's judgment in which he treated the action as if it were brought at least in part to protect Mrs Murray because of her fame as JK Rowling.
In our opinion it is at least arguable that David had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that he is a child is in our view of
greater significance than the judge thought. The courts have recognised
the importance of the rights of children in many different contexts and
so too has the international community: see eg R v Central Independent Television Plc
We recognise that there may well be circumstances in which there will be
no reasonable expectation of privacy, even after Von Hannover. However,
as we see it all will (as ever) depend upon the facts of the particular
case. The judge suggests that a distinction can be drawn between a child
(or an adult) engaged in family and sporting activities and something as simple as a walk down a street or a visit to the grocers to buy the
milk. This is on the basis that the first type of activity is clearly
part of a person's private recreation time intended to be enjoyed in the company of family and friends and that, on the test deployed in Von
Hannover, publicity of such activities is intrusive and can adversely
affect the exercise of such social activities. We agree with the judge
that that is indeed the basis of the ECtHR's approach but we do not
agree that it is possible to draw a clear distinction in principle
between the two kinds of activity. Thus, an expedition to a café of the
kind which occurred here seems to us to be at least arguably part of
each member of the family's recreation time intended to be enjoyed by
them and such that publicity of it is intrusive and such as adversely to affect such activities in the future.
In these circumstances, the judge was in our judgment wrong to strike
out David's claim on the ground that he had no arguable case that he had
a reasonable expectation of privacy.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph?
No, just photography of things people can't reasonably be expected to have deliberately put on public display.
That includes high power telephoto lens
pictures of private premises visible from a public place, as well as upskirting.
I agree, any restriction of photography of what we can freely see in public places would be unacceptable.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems >>>>>>>>>>>> hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>>>> 79% that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>>>> a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>>>> of a bit of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like >>>>>>>>>>> great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>>>> to a young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having
breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis >>>>>>>>>>> Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting
strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your
curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for >>>>> yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because >>>>> it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph?
So you regard underneath a woman's skirt as public property. For some
raeson, that does not surprise me at all.
On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 20:25:04 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 03/03/2025 05:47 PM, Martin Harran wrote:Read it, still up above.
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:So you regard underneath a woman's skirt as public property. For some
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 79% that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a nice bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual
sexting, an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to
snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what?
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a bit of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>>>>>> to a young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having
breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting >>>>>>> strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your >>>>>>> curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for >>>>>>> yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because
it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves?
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an >>>>>>> "assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour?
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other >>>>>> actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men >>>>> to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph? >>>
raeson, that does not surprise me at all.
Tell me you didn't read or understand the foregoing without telling me
that you didn't read or understand the foregoing.
I said absolutely nothing at all along those lines (neither would I) and
I should be obliged if you would apologise for your utterly false
accusation to the effect that I did.
I asked "Do you think it is acceptable for men to be taking photos of
women's underwear (or lack of) without their permission?"
T which you replied " Is photography in a public place, of things and
people, to be madec illegal without the permission of those seen in
the eventual photograph?"
Feel free to explain something else you meant by public place in
regard to women's underwear (or lack of).
On 3 Mar 2025 at 18:53:16 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2025 17:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Mar 2025 at 16:03:18 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:No, just photography of things people can't reasonably be expected to have >>> deliberately put on public display. That includes high power telephoto lens >>> pictures of private premises visible from a public place, as well as
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other >>>>>> actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>>>
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting >>>>>>> strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your >>>>>>> curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for >>>>>>> yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because
it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves? >>>>>>>
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an >>>>>>> "assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour? >>>>>>
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men >>>>> to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph? >>>
upskirting.
I agree, any restriction of photography of what we can freely see in public >>> places would be unacceptable.
If someone on a tube train took a photo of you picking your nose and
then uploaded it to a website entitled Ugly People On Trains, I think
you'd be angry and upset but I doubt if you'd have any redress.
It is perhaps rather counter-intuitive that a picture of a woman's
underwear from which she cannot be identified can be unlawful because it
is upskirting.
I daresay the law might still be in flux. One of the main Court of
Appeal decisions involved no less a person than JK Rowling. She sued as
Joanne Murray.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html
quotes
Dr Murray was pushing a buggy with David in it. The respondent ('BPL')
took a colour photograph of the family group which was subsequently
published in the Sunday Express magazine on 3 April 2005... In the
action David asserts an infringement of his right to respect for his
privacy contrary to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
('the Convention'). He also puts his claim under the Data Protection Act
1998 ('the DPA').
It is in our opinion of some importance that the action was brought by
David's parents only on behalf of David and not on their own behalf. Mr
Spearman submits that that fact was not sufficiently recognised by the
judge, whom he submits treated the action as if it was brought for the
benefit of both the parents and the child. We accept that submission. It
does seem to us that there are parts of the judge's judgment in which he
treated the action as if it were brought at least in part to protect Mrs
Murray because of her fame as JK Rowling.
In our opinion it is at least arguable that David had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. The fact that he is a child is in our view of
greater significance than the judge thought. The courts have recognised
the importance of the rights of children in many different contexts and
so too has the international community: see eg R v Central Independent
Television Plc
We recognise that there may well be circumstances in which there will be
no reasonable expectation of privacy, even after Von Hannover. However,
as we see it all will (as ever) depend upon the facts of the particular
case. The judge suggests that a distinction can be drawn between a child
(or an adult) engaged in family and sporting activities and something as
simple as a walk down a street or a visit to the grocers to buy the
milk. This is on the basis that the first type of activity is clearly
part of a person's private recreation time intended to be enjoyed in the
company of family and friends and that, on the test deployed in Von
Hannover, publicity of such activities is intrusive and can adversely
affect the exercise of such social activities. We agree with the judge
that that is indeed the basis of the ECtHR's approach but we do not
agree that it is possible to draw a clear distinction in principle
between the two kinds of activity. Thus, an expedition to a café of the
kind which occurred here seems to us to be at least arguably part of
each member of the family's recreation time intended to be enjoyed by
them and such that publicity of it is intrusive and such as adversely to
affect such activities in the future.
In these circumstances, the judge was in our judgment wrong to strike
out David's claim on the ground that he had no arguable case that he had
a reasonable expectation of privacy.
It is not clear to me from the appeal judgment whether it was taking the picture, publishing the picture or both that was complained of. Can anyone tell me?
Apparently 38% of men who wear kilts go commando. But 7% are so shy they wear >shorts or even tights.
On 03/03/2025 17:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Mar 2025 at 16:03:18 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that >>>>>>>>>>>>> 79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has >>>>>>>>>>>>> a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting >>>>>> strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your >>>>>> curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for >>>>>> yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because >>>>>> it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves? >>>>>>
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an
"assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour? >>>>>
actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>>
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph?
No, just photography of things people can't reasonably be expected to have >> deliberately put on public display. That includes high power telephoto lens >> pictures of private premises visible from a public place, as well as
upskirting.
I agree, any restriction of photography of what we can freely see in public >> places would be unacceptable.
If someone on a tube train took a photo of you picking your nose and then uploaded it to a website entitled Ugly People On Trains, I think you'd be angry
and upset but I doubt if you'd have any redress.
On 3 Mar 2025 at 09:14:33 GMT, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 22:44, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 at 20:35:34 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 18:19:52 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 2 Mar 2025 at 17:53:50 GMT, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:There are, broadly speaking, two principal objections to criminalising >>>> upskirting. The first is that where it addresses a real problem it merely >>>> duplicates existing offences, while at the same time it risks criminalising
"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other >>>>>> actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal >>>>>> (as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law), could count as >>>>>> "coercive control" of a sizeable chunk of society (to use a fashionable >>>>>> phrase).
The most obviously absurd thing about "upskirting" is the people who want to
do it. However, the recent availability of cheap, very small cameras probably
accounts for its increasing prevalence. I don't see anything particularly >>>>> absurd about making an unpleasant breach of people's privacy illegal. >>>>
activity where the exposure is merely incidental or trivial (eg, the Marilyn
Monroe on a grating pose, or where someone wearing a short skirt walks above
the viewpoint of people below). The second objection is that upskirting is >>>> perfectly harmless and anyone who gets upset about being upskirted is, to >>>> use the vernacular, a snowflake.
The first objection is expressed by those who are concerned with legislative
mission creep and lack confidence in the ability of the government to draft
robust legislation. The second objection is expressed by misogynists,
perverts and those who profit from misogynists and perverts.
Mark
While subjectively I agree with you, should we not account for the possibility
that doctrinaire liberatarians may strongly believe that insufficient harm is
involved to warrant making it a criminal offence? (Though actually I believe
they are simply unable to put themselves in the place of many women to whom >>> the crime is actually quite harmful.) Is that not a valid point of view? >>>
Advocating for a view I do not hold; although generally I think we should >>> think twice before inventing new crimes, I agree with you that this is valid
one.
I expect men who wear kilts might not like it either.
They might not. I doubt they'd bother to complain. And they might actually take it as a compliment.
On 03/03/2025 18:53, The Todal wrote:
If someone on a tube train took a photo of you picking your nose and
then uploaded it to a website entitled Ugly People On Trains, I think
you'd be angry and upset but I doubt if you'd have any redress.
Some years ago a photo was taken of my husband sound asleep on a train
and that was published in an article in a paper about trains. It was
used again some time later.
We were amused.
On 03/03/2025 19:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Mar 2025 at 18:53:16 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 03/03/2025 17:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Mar 2025 at 16:03:18 GMT, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:No, just photography of things people can't reasonably be expected to have >>>> deliberately put on public display. That includes high power telephoto lens
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 02/03/2025 14:00, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:52, Norman Wells wrote:"Sexual assault" is a criminal act. Clearly there are lots of other >>>>>>> actions which are undesirable, but attempting to make out that they are >>>>>>> equivalent to assault, which could be a precursor to making them illegal
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:21, Norman Wells wrote:
On 02/03/2025 07:26, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sat, 1 Mar 2025 20:39:44 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On 01/03/2025 12:00, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:47:55 +0000, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
But that statistic is essentially impossible to evaluate and seems
hugely exaggerated until you define specifically what is in that
79%
that counts as 'being sexually assaulted'.
Does it include, for example, wolf-whistling, saying someone has
a nice
bum, twanging a bra strap, sexualised name-calling, consensual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sexting,
an arm round the shoulder or a brief kiss, all of which seem to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> snowflakes these days to be sexual assault, or what? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If it does, I would suggest that it's the girls who are in need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a bit
of urgent resilience training.
That is a perfect illustration of what I said earlier in this thread
about how many men simply don't get how offensive if not threatening
their behaviour can be. Snapping a girl's bra strap might seem like
great fun to a young testosterone-fuelled lad but not at all fun >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a
young girl who is maybe just getting used to dealing with having >>>>>>>>>>>>>> breasts. An unwelcome kiss is unwelcome no matter how brief as Luis
Rubiales recently discovered.
Are they all in your view sexual assaults?
That's what we were discussing.
You could make the effort to read the report, rather than expecting >>>>>>>> strangers on Usenet to invent definitions for you, to satisfy your >>>>>>>> curiosity.
So I'll ask you. Have you actually bothered to research this topic for >>>>>>>> yourself, or do you prefer to cross-question me and other people because
it is convenient to imagine that we did all the research ourselves? >>>>>>>>
And is it your opinion that if an action falls short of being an >>>>>>>> "assault" it is therefore normal, acceptable, reasonable behaviour? >>>>>>>
Which nobody is trying to do, just Norman playing silly games.
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men >>>>>> to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their >>>>>> permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph? >>>>
pictures of private premises visible from a public place, as well as
upskirting.
I agree, any restriction of photography of what we can freely see in public
places would be unacceptable.
If someone on a tube train took a photo of you picking your nose and
then uploaded it to a website entitled Ugly People On Trains, I think
you'd be angry and upset but I doubt if you'd have any redress.
It is perhaps rather counter-intuitive that a picture of a woman's
underwear from which she cannot be identified can be unlawful because it >>> is upskirting.
I daresay the law might still be in flux. One of the main Court of
Appeal decisions involved no less a person than JK Rowling. She sued as
Joanne Murray.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html
quotes
Dr Murray was pushing a buggy with David in it. The respondent ('BPL')
took a colour photograph of the family group which was subsequently
published in the Sunday Express magazine on 3 April 2005... In the
action David asserts an infringement of his right to respect for his
privacy contrary to article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights >>> ('the Convention'). He also puts his claim under the Data Protection Act >>> 1998 ('the DPA').
It is in our opinion of some importance that the action was brought by
David's parents only on behalf of David and not on their own behalf. Mr
Spearman submits that that fact was not sufficiently recognised by the
judge, whom he submits treated the action as if it was brought for the
benefit of both the parents and the child. We accept that submission. It >>> does seem to us that there are parts of the judge's judgment in which he >>> treated the action as if it were brought at least in part to protect Mrs >>> Murray because of her fame as JK Rowling.
In our opinion it is at least arguable that David had a reasonable
expectation of privacy. The fact that he is a child is in our view of
greater significance than the judge thought. The courts have recognised
the importance of the rights of children in many different contexts and
so too has the international community: see eg R v Central Independent
Television Plc
We recognise that there may well be circumstances in which there will be >>> no reasonable expectation of privacy, even after Von Hannover. However,
as we see it all will (as ever) depend upon the facts of the particular
case. The judge suggests that a distinction can be drawn between a child >>> (or an adult) engaged in family and sporting activities and something as >>> simple as a walk down a street or a visit to the grocers to buy the
milk. This is on the basis that the first type of activity is clearly
part of a person's private recreation time intended to be enjoyed in the >>> company of family and friends and that, on the test deployed in Von
Hannover, publicity of such activities is intrusive and can adversely
affect the exercise of such social activities. We agree with the judge
that that is indeed the basis of the ECtHR's approach but we do not
agree that it is possible to draw a clear distinction in principle
between the two kinds of activity. Thus, an expedition to a café of the >>> kind which occurred here seems to us to be at least arguably part of
each member of the family's recreation time intended to be enjoyed by
them and such that publicity of it is intrusive and such as adversely to >>> affect such activities in the future.
In these circumstances, the judge was in our judgment wrong to strike
out David's claim on the ground that he had no arguable case that he had >>> a reasonable expectation of privacy.
It is not clear to me from the appeal judgment whether it was taking the
picture, publishing the picture or both that was complained of. Can anyone >> tell me?
I think the infringement of privacy must take place when the photo is published at which point blame lies with whoever caused it to be published.
It would be rather oppressive to penalise photographers for taking a
photo that they then erase or decide is unsuitable for publication -
unless it's an upskirting photo.
On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:03:18 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph?
So you regard underneath a woman's skirt as public property. For some
raeson, that does not surprise me at all.
On Tue, 4 Mar 2025 09:51:03 +0000, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
Apparently 38% of men who wear kilts go commando. But 7% are so shy they wear
shorts or even tights.
Traditionally, the kilt is all that's required. Hence the old joke:
Is anything worn under the kilt?
No, it's all in perfect working order.
See also (spoiler alert!) the denouement of "Carry On Up the Khyber".
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
So go on, describe how you think you would feel if you were 11, a
little boy called Norman in a boys school, and a 13 year old boy kept
staring at you and telling you that you have a nice bum and then
kissing you on the lips. I expect your private fantasy is that it
would be a girl doing this but my described scenario more accurately
shows the balance of power and the uncertainty about whether you can
object to such advances without making the situation worse.
Here's a suggestion - separate schools for girls and boys giving both
sexes a safe environment while they ar esupposed to be learning. That
would solve the Ofsted thing.
On 03/03/2025 17:47, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:03:18 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
On 02/03/2025 06:12 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 2 Mar 2025 17:53:50 +0000, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
(as has been done with the absurd "upskirting" law),
Why do you regard it as absurd? Do you think it is acceptable for men
to be taking photos of women's underwear (or lack of) without their
permission?
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph? >>>
So you regard underneath a woman's skirt as public property. For some
raeson, that does not surprise me at all.
How about lifting a girl's skirt to see her underwear? Is that assault,
even though her 'person' has not been touched?
(Common practise in school. One boy at my school was given TEN lines for
the offence by a (presumably male) prefect.)
On 03/03/2025 19:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 Mar 2025 at 18:53:16 GMT, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
If someone on a tube train took a photo of you picking your nose and
then uploaded it to a website entitled Ugly People On Trains, I think
you'd be angry and upset but I doubt if you'd have any redress.
It is perhaps rather counter-intuitive that a picture of a woman's
underwear from which she cannot be identified can be unlawful because it >>> is upskirting.
I daresay the law might still be in flux. One of the main Court of
Appeal decisions involved no less a person than JK Rowling. She sued as
Joanne Murray.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/446.html
On 03/03/2025 17:47, Martin Harran wrote:
On Mon, 03 Mar 2025 16:03:18 +0000, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
Is photography in a public place, of things and people, to be made
illegal without the permission of those seen in the eventual photograph?
So you regard underneath a woman's skirt as public property. For some
raeson, that does not surprise me at all.
How about lifting a girl's skirt to see her underwear? Is that assault,
even though her 'person' has not been touched?
(Common practise in school. One boy at my school was given TEN lines for
the offence by a (presumably male) prefect.)
On 02/03/2025 13:38, kat wrote:
On 02/03/2025 12:32, The Todal wrote:
So go on, describe how you think you would feel if you were 11, a
little boy called Norman in a boys school, and a 13 year old boy kept
staring at you and telling you that you have a nice bum and then
kissing you on the lips. I expect your private fantasy is that it
would be a girl doing this but my described scenario more accurately
shows the balance of power and the uncertainty about whether you can
object to such advances without making the situation worse.
Here's a suggestion - separate schools for girls and boys giving both
sexes a safe environment while they ar esupposed to be learning. That
would solve the Ofsted thing.
How are people going to learn how to form a relationship with a member
of the opposite sex if they don't mix with them? There's "Relationships
and Sex Education (RSE)", but, like the sex education we had at school,
is just about telling people what *not* to do, not how to do it. (Shock horror!)
On 04/03/2025 09:58, kat wrote:
On 03/03/2025 18:53, The Todal wrote:
If someone on a tube train took a photo of you picking your nose and
then uploaded it to a website entitled Ugly People On Trains, I think
you'd be angry and upset but I doubt if you'd have any redress.
Some years ago a photo was taken of my husband sound asleep on a train
and that was published in an article in a paper about trains. It was
used again some time later.
We were amused.
Have a care, kat, you're displaying signs of resilience, and I'm not
sure that's allowed in these parts.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:34:08 |
| Calls: | 9,798 |
| Files: | 13,751 |
| Messages: | 6,189,398 |