As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's
pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans
woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and
only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Ah, the Woman Question. It used to be, "What are women for"; now it's
"What is a woman?" O tempora, O mores!
Will the guid justices consider what hoi polloi want? Maybe they want
boys to be boys, and girls to be girls?
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another category
that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an
opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical" organisations
and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can claim
direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if the
defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look feminine enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis woman cannot
claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's
pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans
woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and
only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in understanding the term "woman"?
On 16/04/2025 13:17, Simon Parker wrote:
On 16/04/2025 12:21, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from
sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
There’s 88 pages of it!
Is there a ‘key findings’ summary anywhere?
There's a Press Summary [^1] which is a mere four pages long but it
includes the following Note: "This summary is provided to assist in
understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons >> for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only
authoritative document."
It references the relevant paragraph numbers in the full judgment.
[^1] https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf
And for those for whom four pages of reading is too much, there's a
video slightly under 20 minutes here [^1] which is the court announcing
their decision which covers the key points thereof.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHtbTragtg
On 16 Apr 2025 at 11:37:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical" organisations
and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's pretty bonkers.
Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can claim
direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if the
defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look feminine
enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis woman cannot
claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided that they would discriminate against any other man too, and, importantly, provided
that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal;
but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation
I shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion.
I admit to some surprise.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's
pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans
woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and
only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted clarification.
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans
woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and
only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary >> meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 14:55:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The
dictionary meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside
their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Agreed in general discussion. But I don't really see how it can be
regarded as sinister when no mechanism is proposed for enforcing it. I
do think an individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred
to as a cis- woman or man to their face.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 14:55:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary
meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Agreed in general discussion. But I don't really see how it can be regarded as
sinister when no mechanism is proposed for enforcing it. I do think an individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a cis- woman or man to their face.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Ah, the Woman Question. It used to be, "What are women for"; now it's
"What is a woman?" O tempora, O mores!
Will the guid justices consider what hoi polloi want? Maybe they want
boys to be boys, and girls to be girls?
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another category
that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an
opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically outlaws discrimination against people because of their transgender status.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:55:16 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 13:17, Simon Parker wrote:
On 16/04/2025 12:21, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by theThere’s 88 pages of it!
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a >>>>> Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from >>>>> sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
Is there a ‘key findings’ summary anywhere?
There's a Press Summary [^1] which is a mere four pages long but it
includes the following Note: "This summary is provided to assist in
understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons >>> for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only
authoritative document."
It references the relevant paragraph numbers in the full judgment.
[^1] https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf
And for those for whom four pages of reading is too much, there's a
video slightly under 20 minutes here [^1] which is the court announcing
their decision which covers the key points thereof.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHtbTragtg
Try: "The definition of a woman in the Equality Act does not include trans women, only people born as women."
There is some relevant stuff on the interpretation of other laws, but that about sums it up. IMHO
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the >discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 11:37:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's
pretty bonkers.
Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can claim
direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if the
defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look feminine
enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis woman cannot
claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided
that they would discriminate against any other man too, and,
importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal;
but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I
shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion.
I admit to some surprise.
Apparently multiple KCs who were asked by Good Law Project described For Women's case as "not even arguable", and yet now we have a unanimous
Supreme Court judgement not only agreeing with it but possibly going
further even than they asked for. Surprise is a reasonable response.
On 16/04/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
Ah, the Woman Question. It used to be, "What are women for"; now it's
"What is a woman?" O tempora, O mores!
Will the guid justices consider what hoi polloi want? Maybe they want
boys to be boys, and girls to be girls?
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another
category that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed,
have an opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically
outlaws discrimination against people because of their transgender
status.
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to discriminate against? Can I be on it?
On 16/04/2025 13:17, Simon Parker also wrote:
There's a Press Summary [^1] which is a mere four pages long but it
includes the following Note: "This summary is provided to assist in
understanding the Courts decision. It does not form part of the reasons
for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only
authoritative document."
It references the relevant paragraph numbers in the full judgment.
[^1] https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf
And for those for whom four pages of reading is too much, there's a
video slightly under 20 minutes here [^1] which is the court announcing
their decision which covers the key points thereof.
The Court was not deciding whether the Gender Recognition Act is still
good law when it says:
quote
Para 9: Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a
person, the persons gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender
(so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the persons sex
becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the persons sex >becomes that of a woman).
unquote
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 19:04:27 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
The Court was not deciding whether the Gender Recognition Act is still
good law when it says:
quote
Para 9: Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a
person, the persons gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender
(so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the persons sex
becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the persons sex
becomes that of a woman).
unquote
The court wasn't deciding that, no. But the GRA is clearly bollocks here. That section conflates gender and sex and treats both as binary. And that doesn't work no matter what side of the fence you're looking at it from.
Mark
On 16/04/2025 16:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 14:55:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they >>>>>> look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary
meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted >>>> clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Agreed in general discussion. But I don't really see how it can be regarded as
sinister when no mechanism is proposed for enforcing it. I do think an
individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a cis- woman
or man to their face.
It's like being asked, "Are you really a man." (Or, for that matter,
"Really a Jew"; or "Really an African.")
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:48:13 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 11:37:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>> pretty bonkers.
Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can claim
direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if the
defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look feminine
enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis woman cannot
claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided
that they would discriminate against any other man too, and,
importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal;
but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I
shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion.
I admit to some surprise.
Apparently multiple KCs who were asked by Good Law Project described For
Women's case as "not even arguable", and yet now we have a unanimous
Supreme Court judgement not only agreeing with it but possibly going
further even than they asked for. Surprise is a reasonable response.
I'm not surprised.
When you follow what outcomes any other ruling would have led to, it's eminently sensible.
It also reinforces the government view that existing legislation was
quite enough to deal with the situation. Again, if you want to argue otherwise you need to produce a situation to support that claim.
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
On 16/04/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Ah, the Woman Question. It used to be, "What are women for"; now it's
"What is a woman?" O tempora, O mores!
Will the guid justices consider what hoi polloi want? Maybe they want
boys to be boys, and girls to be girls?
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another category >>> that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an
opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically outlaws >> discrimination against people because of their transgender status.
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to discriminate against? Can I be on it?
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Reading this thread has been fascinating. To clarify things in my mind
does the judgement mean that my daughter is now (or can now) be protected from a 6' 6" hairy arsed navvy sidling up to her in a women's changing
room and saying "move your stuff up, please, so I can put my makeup bag there?"
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
I would certainly like to see some competent legal analysis of the
decision by lawyers who specialise in this field of work. Maybe we'll eventually see a worthwhile analysis either on a chambers website or in
a newspaper.
Meanwhile, we have the moronic comments of journalists who don't know
any better. Janice Turner in the Times: "A historic victory — but did we need a court to tell us what a woman is? It has cost vast sums of public money and crowdfunded donations for the Supreme Court to uphold the
common sense position that sex is real... The concept of woman does not include male persons who, with a bit of admin and £6, have acquired a
gender recognition certificate (GRC). Or as a placard outside put it
more bluntly: “Women are born, not some bloke with a form.” "
unquote
The Supreme Court was deciding this question:
quote
Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (“GRC”) which recognises that their gender is female, a “woman” for the purposes of
the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”)?
unquote
The Court was not deciding whether the Gender Recognition Act is still
good law when it says:
quote
Para 9: 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).
unquote
So those campaigners who now believe that a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate has no right to call herself a woman, are wrong.
That hasn't changed. All that has changed is the scope of the protection given specifically under the 2010 Act. And the judgment seems to confirm
that there is no valid distinction in law between "sex" and "gender".
Today's judgment may no doubt have repercussions but I don't believe it obliges trans people to prove what sex they are before entering
women-only spaces or any other spaces.
Nor does it give nurses the right
to refuse to share changing rooms with trans colleagues. Nor does it
give JK Rowling the right to jeer at trans women and assert that they
are men. She might already have that right, unfortunately, because of
the Forstater precedent, but the Supreme Court decision does not affect
that.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 17:27:42 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 16:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 14:55:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the >>>>>>>> latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are >>>>>>>> perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they >>>>>>> look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch. >>>>>>
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary
meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted >>>>> clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop >>>> trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Agreed in general discussion. But I don't really see how it can be regarded as
sinister when no mechanism is proposed for enforcing it. I do think an
individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a cis- woman
or man to their face.
It's like being asked, "Are you really a man." (Or, for that matter,
"Really a Jew"; or "Really an African.")
Actually it almost the converse; it's like someone saying "I know you're a man, but I am also a different kind of man even though I wasn't born as one."
It is not questioning the "cis" persons sex, but more claiming to also have
their privileges.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 19:04:27 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Today's judgment may no doubt have repercussions but I don't believe it
obliges trans people to prove what sex they are before entering
women-only spaces or any other spaces.
I suspect that it obliges them to either do so when challenged or refrain from
entering some women-only spaces. This remains to be seen. But UK governments seem to like inventing new crimes. Disciplinary action, of course, requires proof only on the balance of probability.
Nor does it give nurses the right
to refuse to share changing rooms with trans colleagues. Nor does it
give JK Rowling the right to jeer at trans women and assert that they
are men. She might already have that right, unfortunately, because of
the Forstater precedent, but the Supreme Court decision does not affect
that.
The law certainly gives the nurses' employer the *duty* to forbid holders of a
female GRC using the women's changing room. And I strongly suspect that gives the nurses a right to complain if they do. Exactly what an employer needs to do, or what it is reasonable for them to do, in order to enforce the rule remains to be established.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's
pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans
woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and
only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted clarification.
"Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 11:37:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
<https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf>
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>> pretty bonkers.
Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can claim >>>>> direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if the
defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look feminine >>>>> enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis woman cannot >>>>> claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided
that they would discriminate against any other man too, and,
importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal; >>>> but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I
shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion.
I admit to some surprise.
Apparently multiple KCs who were asked by Good Law Project described For >>> Women's case as "not even arguable", and yet now we have a unanimous
Supreme Court judgement not only agreeing with it but possibly going
further even than they asked for. Surprise is a reasonable response.
I'm not surprised.
When you follow what outcomes any other ruling would have led to, it's
eminently sensible.
It also reinforces the government view that existing legislation was
quite enough to deal with the situation. Again, if you want to argue
otherwise you need to produce a situation to support that claim.
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
I think it is important to note what the Supreme Court didn't say. It certainly did not change the definition of a woman in ordinary speech, or indeed prevent trans women calling themselves women. Or non-binary people calling themselves 'they' etc.
It didn't even change the definition of a woman
for all legal purposes. For instance when the Gender Recognition Act says a man living as a woman can acquire a certificate to say he *is* a woman, it didn't change that. What it changed or at least established is that the right of a woman (or a man) not to be discriminated against on grounds of sex, under
the Equality Act, applied to their biological sex they were born with. In other words a trans-woman cannot claim all the rights of a woman born a woman.
But the trans-woman still has a right not to be discriminated against just because they are changing or have changed sex.
It is a really important ruling, but by no means as broad as you are implying;
it won't affect preferred pronouns!
On 16 Apr 2025 at 17:31:44 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityAh, the Woman Question. It used to be, "What are women for"; now it's
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
"What is a woman?" O tempora, O mores!
Will the guid justices consider what hoi polloi want? Maybe they want
boys to be boys, and girls to be girls?
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another category >>>> that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an
opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically outlaws
discrimination against people because of their transgender status.
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to
discriminate against? Can I be on it?
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong at least three of them.
On 16/04/2025 08:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans
woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and
only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary >> meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
As a matter of interest, what is its meaning (if any)?
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:55:16 BST, "Simon Parker" <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 13:17, Simon Parker wrote:
On 16/04/2025 12:21, Spike wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by theThere’s 88 pages of it!
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a >>>>> Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from >>>>> sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
Is there a ‘key findings’ summary anywhere?
There's a Press Summary [^1] which is a mere four pages long but it
includes the following Note: "This summary is provided to assist in
understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons >>> for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only
authoritative document."
It references the relevant paragraph numbers in the full judgment.
[^1] https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
uksc_2024_0042_press_summary_8a42145662.pdf
And for those for whom four pages of reading is too much, there's a
video slightly under 20 minutes here [^1] which is the court announcing
their decision which covers the key points thereof.
Regards
S.P.
[^1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxHtbTragtg
Try: "The definition of a woman in the Equality Act does not include trans women, only people born as women."
There is some relevant stuff on the interpretation of other laws, but that about sums it up. IMHO
On 16/04/2025 20:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 19:04:27 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Today's judgment may no doubt have repercussions but I don't believe it
obliges trans people to prove what sex they are before entering
women-only spaces or any other spaces.
I suspect that it obliges them to either do so when challenged or refrain from
entering some women-only spaces. This remains to be seen. But UK governments >> seem to like inventing new crimes. Disciplinary action, of course, requires >> proof only on the balance of probability.
I disagree, because there is nothing in the judgment to support such an interpretation and also because of the obvious infringement of human
rights if the gatekeeper of the women-only spaces is going to say "you
look a bit male, you've got facial hair, you must prove to me that you
are a woman" regardless of actual biological sex.
Nor does it give nurses the right
to refuse to share changing rooms with trans colleagues. Nor does it
give JK Rowling the right to jeer at trans women and assert that they
are men. She might already have that right, unfortunately, because of
the Forstater precedent, but the Supreme Court decision does not affect
that.
The law certainly gives the nurses' employer the *duty* to forbid holders of a
female GRC using the women's changing room. And I strongly suspect that gives
the nurses a right to complain if they do. Exactly what an employer needs to >> do, or what it is reasonable for them to do, in order to enforce the rule
remains to be established.
That might be how you'd like it to be. But I see nothing in the judgment
to support such an interpretation. The fact that trans women cannot
enforce their rights as women under the Employment Act cannot possibly
create a new duty on employers to forbid trans people from having access
to spaces.
I think the reality is that the Supreme Court decision will have far
less impact than the chattering classes seem to think. So okay, trans
women cannot form part of a quota of women. But they remain entitled to
be regarded as women for the purpose of living their normal lives.
Did "preferred pronouns" ever really matter?
On 16/04/2025 18:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
Well, possibly '<insert name here> does not believe in pronouns', if
you^w Jethro_uk sees what I mean.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:16:04 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 16/04/2025 18:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
Well, possibly '<insert name here> does not believe in pronouns', if
you^w Jethro_uk sees what I mean.
But why should that need to be stated in the first place ?
I think the reality is that the Supreme Court decision will have far
less impact than the chattering classes seem to think. So okay, trans
women cannot form part of a quota of women. But they remain entitled to
be regarded as women for the purpose of living their normal lives.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 14:55:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary
meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Agreed in general discussion. But I don't really see how it can be regarded as
sinister when no mechanism is proposed for enforcing it. I do think an individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a cis- woman or man to their face.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:21:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
Did "preferred pronouns" ever really matter?
I think they do when you are either expected to use ones which don't seem appropriate (e.g. calling a man "she").
However much more insidious is forcing people to "choose" pronouns, as is forcing them to subscribe to a particular philosophical view - which is contrary to the notion of freedom of belief. Which by definition
encompasses freedom from belief too.
On 17/04/2025 09:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:16:04 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 16/04/2025 18:43, Jethro_uk wrote:an
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes
demanding your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in
pronouns".
Well, possibly '<insert name here> does not believe in pronouns',
if
you^w Jethro_uk sees what I mean.
But why should that need to be stated in the first place ?
I'm not aware of anywhere that needs it, unlike requiring a title.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 23:08:07 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 08:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not theThe direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The
dictionary meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside
their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
As a matter of interest, what is its meaning (if any)?
If you remember your Latin, it's the opposite of trans. Means you've
achieved getting through life so far without changing sex.
The Todal wrote:
I think the reality is that the Supreme Court decision will have far
less impact than the chattering classes seem to think. So okay, trans
women cannot form part of a quota of women. But they remain entitled to
be regarded as women for the purpose of living their normal lives.
Chap on radio this morning (Glasgow law professor? I didn't catch his
name) was generally talking sense, but then in addition to "biological
sex" and "chosen gender identity", seemed to want to introduce the
concept of "perceived biological sex" ... how does that do anything
other than complicate the matter?
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:21:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
Did "preferred pronouns" ever really matter?
I think they do when you are either expected to use ones which don't seem appropriate (e.g. calling a man "she").
However much more insidious is forcing people to "choose" pronouns, as is forcing them to subscribe to a particular philosophical view - which is contrary to the notion of freedom of belief. Which by definition
encompasses freedom from belief too.
There are plenty of *legal* cases where demanding an answer to a question
is compelled speech.
"So when did you stop beating your wife ?"
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Reading this thread has been fascinating. To clarify things in my mind
does the judgement mean that my daughter is now (or can now) be
protected from a 6' 6" hairy arsed navvy sidling up to her in a women's changing room and saying "move your stuff up, please, so I can put my
makeup bag there?"
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 17:27:42 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 16:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 14:55:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted >>>>> clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop >>>> trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Agreed in general discussion. But I don't really see how it can be regarded as
sinister when no mechanism is proposed for enforcing it. I do think an
individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a cis- woman
or man to their face.
It's like being asked, "Are you really a man." (Or, for that matter,
"Really a Jew"; or "Really an African.")
Actually it almost the converse; it's like someone saying "I know you're a man, but I am also a different kind of man even though I wasn't born as one."
It is not questioning the "cis" persons sex, but more claiming to also have
their privileges.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:48:13 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 11:37:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>> pretty bonkers.
Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can claim
direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if the
defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look feminine
enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis woman cannot
claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided
that they would discriminate against any other man too, and,
importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal;
but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I
shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion.
I admit to some surprise.
Apparently multiple KCs who were asked by Good Law Project described For
Women's case as "not even arguable", and yet now we have a unanimous
Supreme Court judgement not only agreeing with it but possibly going
further even than they asked for. Surprise is a reasonable response.
I'm not surprised.
When you follow what outcomes any other ruling would have led to, it's eminently sensible.
It also reinforces the government view that existing legislation was
quite enough to deal with the situation. Again, if you want to argue otherwise you need to produce a situation to support that claim.
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
On 16/04/2025 23:20, The Todal wrote:
That might be how you'd like it to be. But I see nothing in the judgment
to support such an interpretation. The fact that trans women cannot
enforce their rights as women under the Employment Act cannot possibly
create a new duty on employers to forbid trans people from having access
to spaces.
It is my understanding that Baroness Falkner appears to disagree with you.
I think the reality is that the Supreme Court decision will have far
less impact than the chattering classes seem to think. So okay, trans
women cannot form part of a quota of women. But they remain entitled to
be regarded as women for the purpose of living their normal lives.
The EHRC was an intervener in the Supreme Court case so it is to be
hoped that Baroness Falkner has a clue about what she's talking.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 18:01:17 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Reading this thread has been fascinating. To clarify things in my mind
does the judgement mean that my daughter is now (or can now) be protected
from a 6' 6" hairy arsed navvy sidling up to her in a women's changing
room and saying "move your stuff up, please, so I can put my makeup bag
there?"
If the changing room is a women's one provided by an employer under the H&S regs, then, yes, it means precisely that. If it is a unisex changing room then no. If it is a women's changing room provided by an organisation other than for their employees - it depends! On an impact assessment, probably.
On 16/04/2025 14:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 17:31:44 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian"
<max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by
the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter
holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected
from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Ah, the Woman Question. It used to be, "What are women for"; now it's >>>>> "What is a woman?" O tempora, O mores!
Will the guid justices consider what hoi polloi want? Maybe they want >>>>> boys to be boys, and girls to be girls?
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another
category
that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an
opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically
outlaws
discrimination against people because of their transgender status.
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to
discriminate against? Can I be on it?
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong at
least
three of them.
Are any of the nine categories people against whom anyone can
discriminate with impunity?
If not, what happened to Category no. 10?
On 2025-04-17, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 23:20, The Todal wrote:
That might be how you'd like it to be. But I see nothing in the judgment >>> to support such an interpretation. The fact that trans women cannot
enforce their rights as women under the Employment Act cannot possibly
create a new duty on employers to forbid trans people from having access >>> to spaces.
It is my understanding that Baroness Falkner appears to disagree with you. >>
I think the reality is that the Supreme Court decision will have far
less impact than the chattering classes seem to think. So okay, trans
women cannot form part of a quota of women. But they remain entitled to
be regarded as women for the purpose of living their normal lives.
The EHRC was an intervener in the Supreme Court case so it is to be
hoped that Baroness Falkner has a clue about what she's talking.
She does but the EHRC under her watch is an anti-trans campaign group,
so her opinions are not necessarily anything to do with the law.
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single
sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right
in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would
his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful claim
of discrimination?
Where there is a gender requirement for a woman prison officer to work
in a women's prison, will this now include trans men?
Given a trans female with full transition is unable to rape, then it's
not obvious why she should be committed to a male prison?
This whole subject was created out of a problem where the Scottish
Assembly thought it smart for GRC to be issued without any credibility.
The trans pressure groups' push in Scotland has backfired badly on the
trans community.
"perceived biological sex" is far more important than "biological
sex" (whatever that means), since the former is the only one that
people in everyday situations can use to make decisions on
Jon Ribbens wrote:
"perceived biological sex" is far more important than "biological
sex" (whatever that means), since the former is the only one that
people in everyday situations can use to make decisions on
So someone born male, later decides they feel like a woman and wants to
use the Ladies instead of the Gents. But in reality doesn't look very convincing as a woman, so the most important factor is that they're
perceived as a bloke in a dress, therefore they should use the Gents
after all?
I do think an
individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a
cis- woman
or man to their face.
Thank you for that Roger. I now feel I can express my feelings - that I would not like it.
I don't see it as a slur, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Andy Burns wrote:
So someone born male, later decides they feel like a woman and wants to
use the Ladies instead of the Gents. But in reality doesn't look very
convincing as a woman, so the most important factor is that they're
perceived as a bloke in a dress, therefore they should use the Gents
after all?
No.
But how they are treated day by day by other people is going to be
primarily down to how they are perceived. Your argument of course leads
to the notion that masculine cis women should use the gents too
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
So someone born male, later decides they feel like a woman and wants to
use the Ladies instead of the Gents. But in reality doesn't look very
convincing as a woman, so the most important factor is that they're
perceived as a bloke in a dress, therefore they should use the Gents
after all?
No.
So how has taking perceived sex into account benefited anyone?
Why make it the most important factor?
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong at least three of them.
On 16/04/2025 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong atThe categories are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
least three of them.
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex, and sexual orientation.
I think I fall into all of them in one way or another. For example, I
assume that I can be discriminated against because I am not in a civil partnership, or because I am male?
The Equality Act is obviously mainly aimed at protecting minorities, but
it does so by banning discrimination on any of the protected
characteristics. So, for example, discrimination against straight, male, married, non-pregnant people is covered.
On 16/04/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds
a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected
from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Ah, the Woman Question. It used to be, "What are women for"; now it's
"What is a woman?" O tempora, O mores!
Will the guid justices consider what hoi polloi want? Maybe they want
boys to be boys, and girls to be girls?
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another category >>> that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an
opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically
outlaws
discrimination against people because of their transgender status.
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to discriminate against? Can I be on it?
Op 16/04/2025 om 17:31 schreef Max Demian:
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to
discriminate against? Can I be on it?
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 18:01:17 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Reading this thread has been fascinating. To clarify things in my mind
does the judgement mean that my daughter is now (or can now) be protected >>> from a 6' 6" hairy arsed navvy sidling up to her in a women's changing
room and saying "move your stuff up, please, so I can put my makeup bag
there?"
If the changing room is a women's one provided by an employer under the H&S >> regs, then, yes, it means precisely that. If it is a unisex changing room
then no. If it is a women's changing room provided by an organisation other >> than for their employees - it depends! On an impact assessment, probably.
Let’s fast-forward five to ten years, to a time when Putin’s rebuilt and re-equipped forces roll across the DMZ with the object of reaching the
Polish border and squashing Ukraine out of existence, and ask yourself
which group of people will the Russian invaders rape and which they will bayonet to death. Waving a GRC or its equivalent won’t help; ‘women’ with
beards and willies are likely to have an unwelcome experience of a terminal kind, Russian policy being what it is, whereas biological women will doubtless suffer as they always have, all this gender furore helping them
not at all. But that’s the real world for you, rather than the fantasy one the Supreme Court has just had to dance around.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
On 16/04/2025 18:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:48:13 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 11:37:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given
the court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so,
it's pretty bonkers.
Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can
claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if
the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look
feminine enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided
that they would discriminate against any other man too, and,
importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the
appeal;
but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I
shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion.
I admit to some surprise.
Apparently multiple KCs who were asked by Good Law Project described
For Women's case as "not even arguable", and yet now we have a
unanimous Supreme Court judgement not only agreeing with it but
possibly going further even than they asked for. Surprise is a
reasonable response.
I'm not surprised.
When you follow what outcomes any other ruling would have led to, it's
eminently sensible.
It also reinforces the government view that existing legislation was
quite enough to deal with the situation. Again, if you want to argue
otherwise you need to produce a situation to support that claim.
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
Asking for your ethnicity is bad enough, especially as it includes odd
things like Irish or Roma.
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter
holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still
protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be
a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single
sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right
in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would
his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful
claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:46:02 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/04/2025 09:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:16:04 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 16/04/2025 18:43, Jethro_uk wrote:an
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes
demanding your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in
pronouns".
Well, possibly '<insert name here> does not believe in pronouns',
if
you^w Jethro_uk sees what I mean.
But why should that need to be stated in the first place ?
I'm not aware of anywhere that needs it, unlike requiring a title.
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by not providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this bollocks" -
which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it *appears*
I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not recognise.
It would be equivalent to a form asking "Name your patron saint" - yes
you can select "prefer not to say". But that would be compelled, and
moreover incorrect.
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until they
get home.
Andy Burns wrote:
So how has taking perceived sex into account benefited anyone?
Why make it the most important factor?
I didn't, reality did? What is your alternative suggestion - that people should prioritise things they cannot perceive? How would they do that?
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
So how has taking perceived sex into account benefited anyone?
Why make it the most important factor?
I didn't, reality did? What is your alternative suggestion - that people
should prioritise things they cannot perceive? How would they do that?
Well, the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a
disabled loo, use that instead?
Otherwise to avoid creating concern/drama bite their lip and use the loo appropriate to their sex rather than their gender ... I realise most of
the concern is about trans women in the ladies, but I have experienced
the situation of a man being bothered by there being a trans man in the Gents.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still
protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be
a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single
sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right
in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would
his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful
claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated
by biological sex.
On 2025-04-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put
about by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt
to stop trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues
that affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and
"Cis-Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
Well apparently the Supreme Court thinks that trans people should use
their immense political clout to cause "trans toilets" to appear all
over the country. Presumably by manipulating space-time to make existing buildings larger to accommodate these extra facilities.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still
protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be
a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single
sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right
in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would
his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful
claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated
by biological sex.
Op 16/04/2025 om 17:31 schreef Max Demian:
On 16/04/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by theAh, the Woman Question. It used to be, "What are women for"; now it's
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds
a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected
from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
"What is a woman?" O tempora, O mores!
Will the guid justices consider what hoi polloi want? Maybe they want
boys to be boys, and girls to be girls?
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another category >>>> that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an
opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically
outlaws
discrimination against people because of their transgender status.
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to
discriminate against? Can I be on it?
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
On 2025-04-17, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by theI confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still >>>>> protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be >>>>> a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful
claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated
by biological sex.
That's not the case.
On 16/04/2025 23:20, The Todal wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 19:04:27 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Today's judgment may no doubt have repercussions but I don't believe it >>>> obliges trans people to prove what sex they are before entering
women-only spaces or any other spaces.
I suspect that it obliges them to either do so when challenged or
refrain from
entering some women-only spaces. This remains to be seen. But UK
governments
seem to like inventing new crimes. Disciplinary action, of course,
requires
proof only on the balance of probability.
I disagree, because there is nothing in the judgment to support such
an interpretation and also because of the obvious infringement of
human rights if the gatekeeper of the women-only spaces is going to
say "you look a bit male, you've got facial hair, you must prove to me
that you are a woman" regardless of actual biological sex.
With respect, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the chairwoman of the Equality
and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has made statements in response to questions on BBC's Today Programme which accord with Roger Hayter's interpretation.
On 17 Apr 2025 at 18:33:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still >>>>>> protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be >>>>>> a woman by the discriminator.I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session >>>>> swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful
claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated
by biological sex.
That's not the case.
True. However, it would not surprise me if there were some outbreaks
of toilet vigilantism, based on misapprehensions about the scope of
the SC decision.
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a
disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using
the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
I just want less tail-wags-dog.Otherwise to avoid creating concern/drama bite their lip and use the loo
appropriate to their sex rather than their gender ... I realise most of
the concern is about trans women in the ladies, but I have experienced
the situation of a man being bothered by there being a trans man in the
Gents.
Perhaps they should wear some sort of arm-band in public at all times
- a pink triangle or something - in order that people be apprised that
a disgusting sub-human is approaching and to give them time to cross
the road.
On 17 Apr 2025 at 18:33:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still >>>>>> protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be >>>>>> a woman by the discriminator.I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session >>>>> swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful
claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated
by biological sex.
That's not the case.
True. However, it would not surprise me if there were some outbreaks of toilet
vigilantism, based on misapprehensions about the scope of the SC decision.
On 2025-04-17, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
"perceived biological sex" is far more important than "biological
sex" (whatever that means), since the former is the only one that
people in everyday situations can use to make decisions on
So someone born male, later decides they feel like a woman and wants to
use the Ladies instead of the Gents. But in reality doesn't look very
convincing as a woman, so the most important factor is that they're
perceived as a bloke in a dress, therefore they should use the Gents
after all?
No. But how they are treated day by day by other people is going to be primarily down to how they are perceived. Your argument of course leads
to the notion that masculine cis women should use the gents too.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 17:32:37 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-17, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put
about by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt
to stop trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues >>>> that affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and
"Cis-Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
Well apparently the Supreme Court thinks that trans people should use
their immense political clout to cause "trans toilets" to appear all
over the country. Presumably by manipulating space-time to make existing
buildings larger to accommodate these extra facilities.
Men's toilets seem to be very rare now after that cottaging affair.
On 17/04/2025 11:41, Simon Parker wrote:
On 16/04/2025 23:20, The Todal wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 19:04:27 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Today's judgment may no doubt have repercussions but I don't believe it >>>>> obliges trans people to prove what sex they are before entering
women-only spaces or any other spaces.
I suspect that it obliges them to either do so when challenged or
refrain from
entering some women-only spaces. This remains to be seen. But UK
governments
seem to like inventing new crimes. Disciplinary action, of course,
requires
proof only on the balance of probability.
I disagree, because there is nothing in the judgment to support such
an interpretation and also because of the obvious infringement of
human rights if the gatekeeper of the women-only spaces is going to
say "you look a bit male, you've got facial hair, you must prove to me
that you are a woman" regardless of actual biological sex.
With respect, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the chairwoman of the Equality
and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has made statements in response to
questions on BBC's Today Programme which accord with Roger Hayter's
interpretation.
I have read what she has said, or what has been attributed to her.
The Baroness is not a lawyer nor does she display much understanding of
the law or indeed, much intelligence. She is, in fact, a Trump-like character, a person enjoying the trappings of importance who wants to cultivate popularity by means of crowd-pleasing rhetoric. And to make
demands based on her personal opinions rather than on any advice from colleagues or from lawyers. She would fit well in Trump's White House.
I must say I lost all respect for the EHRC when it produced a report
into alleged Labour Party antisemitism which was legally illiterate. It wasn't challenged by the Labour Party because it was politically
convenient to pretend that all the criticisms were true and that now
under Starmer the Labour Party has changed its ways and has cast out all
the evil demons.
I still await a good analysis of the position from a competent lawyer.
So far, the most worthwhile analysis is this from Sam Fowles: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/apr/16/supreme-court-definition-woman-judges-law
Because the fact of the matter is that most journalists, in their
scramble to copy and paste, have totally ignored the wise words of the Supreme Court judges:
"It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the
public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal
is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination"
Translation: we have the task of interpreting the words in a
Parliamentary statute to make sense of them. That is the limit of our
task. We aren't asserting that trans women are not entitled to be called women. We aren't saying that the GRA needs to be repealed or that there should be special toilets for trans people.
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a
disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using
the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop
able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if
all others are busy.
On 17/04/2025 19:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 18:33:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still >>>>>>> protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be >>>>>>> a woman by the discriminator.I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session >>>>>> swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful >>>>>> claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated >>>> by biological sex.
That's not the case.
True. However, it would not surprise me if there were some outbreaks of toilet
vigilantism, based on misapprehensions about the scope of the SC decision. >>
It would not surprise me if some employers decided to install trans-only toilets and changing rooms so that trans people had to do the walk of
shame and out themselves as trans whenever they needed to use such
rooms. Reminiscent of how the German Jews were not allowed to try to
pass as Aryan but were obliged to out themselves as Jews or face arrest.
In such cases I think the trans people would sue the employer and win,
to the amazement of the Daily Mail.
On 2025-04-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 18:33:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still >>>>>>> protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be >>>>>>> a woman by the discriminator.I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session >>>>>> swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful >>>>>> claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated >>>> by biological sex.
That's not the case.
True. However, it would not surprise me if there were some outbreaks
of toilet vigilantism, based on misapprehensions about the scope of
the SC decision.
Also true.
You know a court decision is bad when multiple organisations have to
put out advice for people who are feeling suicidal as a result of it.
On 2025-04-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 18:01:17 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:Let’s fast-forward five to ten years, to a time when Putin’s rebuilt and >> re-equipped forces roll across the DMZ with the object of reaching the
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by theReading this thread has been fascinating. To clarify things in my mind >>>> does the judgement mean that my daughter is now (or can now) be protected >>>> from a 6' 6" hairy arsed navvy sidling up to her in a women's changing >>>> room and saying "move your stuff up, please, so I can put my makeup bag >>>> there?"
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
If the changing room is a women's one provided by an employer under the H&S >>> regs, then, yes, it means precisely that. If it is a unisex changing room >>> then no. If it is a women's changing room provided by an organisation other >>> than for their employees - it depends! On an impact assessment, probably. >>
Polish border and squashing Ukraine out of existence, and ask yourself
which group of people will the Russian invaders rape and which they will
bayonet to death. Waving a GRC or its equivalent won’t help; ‘women’ with
beards and willies are likely to have an unwelcome experience of a terminal >> kind, Russian policy being what it is, whereas biological women will
doubtless suffer as they always have, all this gender furore helping them
not at all. But that’s the real world for you, rather than the fantasy one >> the Supreme Court has just had to dance around.
No, it's *your* fantasy world where most trans women apparently have
beards. Sadly, in the real world, trans women are also frequently the
victims of rape.
On 17/04/2025 16:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
"perceived biological sex" is far more important than "biological
sex" (whatever that means), since the former is the only one that
people in everyday situations can use to make decisions on
So someone born male, later decides they feel like a woman and wants to
use the Ladies instead of the Gents. But in reality doesn't look very
convincing as a woman, so the most important factor is that they're
perceived as a bloke in a dress, therefore they should use the Gents
after all?
No. But how they are treated day by day by other people is going to be
primarily down to how they are perceived. Your argument of course leads
to the notion that masculine cis women should use the gents too.
There is, already, a fair bit of anecdotal evidence of masculine looking
cis women being aggressively challenged about their right to use the
ladies' facilities and told they shouldn't be in there.
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:13:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 18:33:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>>>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still >>>>>>>> protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be >>>>>>>> a woman by the discriminator.I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>>>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session >>>>>>> swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>>>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>>>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful >>>>>>> claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated >>>>> by biological sex.
That's not the case.
True. However, it would not surprise me if there were some outbreaks
of toilet vigilantism, based on misapprehensions about the scope of
the SC decision.
Also true.
You know a court decision is bad when multiple organisations have to
put out advice for people who are feeling suicidal as a result of it.
Or: you know a court decision is credible if people have no legal
refutation but have to resort to emotional hyperbole.[1]
[1]Granted, *some* people may be feeling suicidal as a result of the decision, but if it had gone the other way *some other* people might
have felt similarly.
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:13:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 18:33:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>>>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still >>>>>>>> protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be >>>>>>>> a woman by the discriminator.I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>>>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session >>>>>>> swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>>>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>>>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful >>>>>>> claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated >>>>> by biological sex.
That's not the case.
True. However, it would not surprise me if there were some outbreaks
of toilet vigilantism, based on misapprehensions about the scope of
the SC decision.
Also true.
You know a court decision is bad when multiple organisations have to
put out advice for people who are feeling suicidal as a result of it.
Or: you know a court decision is credible if people have no legal refutation but have to resort to emotional hyperbole.[1]
[1]Granted, *some* people may be feeling suicidal as a result of the decision,
but if it had gone the other way *some other* people might have felt similarly. That's people: the worst immediate result is people having to change in disabled toilets etc - hardly the end of the world, and probably makes the world a better place for some considerably more other people.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 18:01:17 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:Let’s fast-forward five to ten years, to a time when Putin’s rebuilt and
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>> Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not theReading this thread has been fascinating. To clarify things in my mind >>>>> does the judgement mean that my daughter is now (or can now) be protected >>>>> from a 6' 6" hairy arsed navvy sidling up to her in a women's changing >>>>> room and saying "move your stuff up, please, so I can put my makeup bag >>>>> there?"
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
If the changing room is a women's one provided by an employer under the H&S
regs, then, yes, it means precisely that. If it is a unisex changing room >>>> then no. If it is a women's changing room provided by an organisation other
than for their employees - it depends! On an impact assessment, probably. >>>
re-equipped forces roll across the DMZ with the object of reaching the
Polish border and squashing Ukraine out of existence, and ask yourself
which group of people will the Russian invaders rape and which they will >>> bayonet to death. Waving a GRC or its equivalent won’t help; ‘women’ with
beards and willies are likely to have an unwelcome experience of a terminal >>> kind, Russian policy being what it is, whereas biological women will
doubtless suffer as they always have, all this gender furore helping them >>> not at all. But that’s the real world for you, rather than the fantasy one
the Supreme Court has just had to dance around.
No, it's *your* fantasy world where most trans women apparently have
beards. Sadly, in the real world, trans women are also frequently the
victims of rape.
I rather think you miss the point, in your rush to condemn.
On 17 Apr 2025 at 21:41:51 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:13:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
You know a court decision is bad when multiple organisations have to
put out advice for people who are feeling suicidal as a result of it.
Or: you know a court decision is credible if people have no legal
refutation but have to resort to emotional hyperbole.[1]
[1]Granted, *some* people may be feeling suicidal as a result of the
decision, but if it had gone the other way *some other* people might
have felt similarly. That's people: the worst immediate result is
people having to change in disabled toilets etc - hardly the end of
the world, and probably makes the world a better place for some
considerably more other people.
That seems abrupt. I am aware of the intense wish trans women have to be accepted and have all the rights of women. And to be accepted by
women. What the biological men who want to transition and their
friends don't seem to take in is that the intensity of feeling and
distress that they feel is equalled by the distress that many women
have at having to share spaces with them.
On 2025-04-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 18:01:17 BST, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote:Let’s fast-forward five to ten years, to a time when Putin’s rebuilt and
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger >>>>>> Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not theReading this thread has been fascinating. To clarify things in my mind >>>>>> does the judgement mean that my daughter is now (or can now) be protected
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>
from a 6' 6" hairy arsed navvy sidling up to her in a women's changing >>>>>> room and saying "move your stuff up, please, so I can put my makeup bag >>>>>> there?"
If the changing room is a women's one provided by an employer under the H&S
regs, then, yes, it means precisely that. If it is a unisex changing room >>>>> then no. If it is a women's changing room provided by an organisation other
than for their employees - it depends! On an impact assessment, probably. >>>>
re-equipped forces roll across the DMZ with the object of reaching the >>>> Polish border and squashing Ukraine out of existence, and ask yourself >>>> which group of people will the Russian invaders rape and which they will >>>> bayonet to death. Waving a GRC or its equivalent won’t help; ‘women’ with
beards and willies are likely to have an unwelcome experience of a terminal
kind, Russian policy being what it is, whereas biological women will
doubtless suffer as they always have, all this gender furore helping them >>>> not at all. But that’s the real world for you, rather than the fantasy one
the Supreme Court has just had to dance around.
No, it's *your* fantasy world where most trans women apparently have
beards. Sadly, in the real world, trans women are also frequently the
victims of rape.
I rather think you miss the point, in your rush to condemn.
You are mistaken.
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a
disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using
the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop
able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if
all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way to predict
this.
snip
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:13:55 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 18:33:34 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 13:49:31 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>>>>> holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still >>>>>>>> protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be >>>>>>>> a woman by the discriminator.I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>>>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session >>>>>>> swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>>>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>>>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful >>>>>>> claim of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Because they already exist - as in a provision for a facility separated >>>>> by biological sex.
That's not the case.
True. However, it would not surprise me if there were some outbreaks
of toilet vigilantism, based on misapprehensions about the scope of
the SC decision.
Also true.
You know a court decision is bad when multiple organisations have to
put out advice for people who are feeling suicidal as a result of it.
Or: you know a court decision is credible if people have no legal refutation but have to resort to emotional hyperbole.[1]
[1]Granted, *some* people may be feeling suicidal as a result of the decision,
but if it had gone the other way *some other* people might have felt similarly. That's people: the worst immediate result is people having to change in disabled toilets etc - hardly the end of the world, and probably makes the world a better place for some considerably more other people.
On 2025-04-17, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
So how has taking perceived sex into account benefited anyone?
Why make it the most important factor?
I didn't, reality did? What is your alternative suggestion - that people >>> should prioritise things they cannot perceive? How would they do that?
Well, the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a
disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using
the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Otherwise to avoid creating concern/drama bite their lip and use the loo
appropriate to their sex rather than their gender ... I realise most of
the concern is about trans women in the ladies, but I have experienced
the situation of a man being bothered by there being a trans man in the
Gents.
Perhaps they should wear some sort of arm-band in public at all times
- a pink triangle or something - in order that people be apprised that
a disgusting sub-human is approaching and to give them time to cross
the road.
On 16/04/2025 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong at
least
three of them.
The categories are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex, and sexual orientation.
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by not
providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this bollocks" -
which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it *appears*
I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day without using any pronouns!
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 16/04/2025 om 17:31 schreef Max Demian:
On 16/04/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another category >>>>> that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an
opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically
outlaws
discrimination against people because of their transgender status.
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to
discriminate against? Can I be on it?
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason. Nationality is includeded under race.
On 17/04/2025 18:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Otherwise to avoid creating concern/drama bite their lip and use the loo >>> appropriate to their sex rather than their gender ... I realise most of
the concern is about trans women in the ladies, but I have experienced
the situation of a man being bothered by there being a trans man in the
Gents.
Perhaps they should wear some sort of arm-band in public at all times
- a pink triangle or something - in order that people be apprised that
a disgusting sub-human is approaching and to give them time to cross
the road.
Hitler did it, of course.
But, to put it in perspective, the WP article on Salamone Rossi
(1570-1630 composer) says:
"Rossi was so well-thought of at this court that he was excused from
wearing the yellow badge that was required of other Jews in Mantua."
So, whilst you suggested this as "A Modest Proposal", there's a track
record of doing it.
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
On 17/04/2025 17:53, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong at
least three of them.
The categories are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex, and sexual orientation.
Why just those? Why any? Listing these just legitimises discrimination against other groups (until they are included).
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
On 17/04/2025 17:53, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong at
least
three of them.
The categories are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex, and sexual orientation.
Why just those? Why any? Listing these just legitimises discrimination >against other groups (until they are included).
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words
of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene. Curious.
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words
of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene. Curious.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 14:16:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans campaign
groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words
of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene. Curious.
Bizarrely or not, the EHRC intervened on the Scottish Ministers' side. Perhaps you did not notice that?
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a
disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using
the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop
able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if
all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way to predict >this.
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:25:33 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 17:53, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong atThe categories are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
least three of them.
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex, and sexual orientation.
Why just those? Why any? Listing these just legitimises discrimination >>against other groups (until they are included).
Which other things would you want added?
Some discrimination is perfectly acceptable, and even desirable. We absolutely should discriminate in favour of competence, and discriminate against incompetence. Some roles require certain skills that not
everybody possesses, even if they are perfectly competent in other
areas. It would be utterly absurd to say that it's unlawful to, for
example, discriminate against people with poor IT skills when recruiting
for an office based job.
It's also perfectly OK to discriminate against people who are obnoxious, short-tempered or abusive.
Mark
You know a court decision is bad when multiple organisations have to
put out advice for people who are feeling suicidal as a result of it.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:23:41 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
None of which can be objectively determined.
On 17 Apr 2025 20:29:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a
disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using >>>> the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop
able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if
all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way to predict
this.
The keys are readily available online. You don't have to provide any
evidence of being disabled in order to buy one.
Mark
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by not
providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this bollocks" -
which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it
*appears*
I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your posts
contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day without using any
pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns that
his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to loss of job
or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred in the recent
past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I don't think our King can do).
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:23:41 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
None of which can be objectively determined.
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans
judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case
or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people
can contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a
statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene.
Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of
a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation
requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an
absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't,
Parliament is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible
meaning and that will be the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties to determine the consequences of each possible construction in order to
decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation and
tossing a coin.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:21:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
Did "preferred pronouns" ever really matter?
I think they do when you are either expected to use ones which don't seem appropriate (e.g. calling a man "she").
However much more insidious is forcing people to "choose" pronouns, as is forcing them to subscribe to a particular philosophical view - which is contrary to the notion of freedom of belief. Which by definition
encompasses freedom from belief too.
There are plenty of *legal* cases where demanding an answer to a question
is compelled speech.
"So when did you stop beating your wife ?"
On 17/04/2025 10:29, kat wrote:
I do think an
individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a
cis- woman
or man to their face.
Thank you for that Roger. I now feel I can express my feelings - that
I would not like it.
I don't see it as a slur, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Someone might ask me "Are you a man, and were you born with male
genitalia?"
I might feel uncomfortable being asked that question, and frankly except
in a medical context it might be a bit weird.
I don't think that being asked if I am a cis man would be any worse.
On 17/04/2025 10:40, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:29, kat wrote:
I do think an
individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a
cis- woman
or man to their face.
Thank you for that Roger. I now feel I can express my feelings - that
I would not like it.
I don't see it as a slur, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Someone might ask me "Are you a man, and were you born with male
genitalia?"
I might feel uncomfortable being asked that question, and frankly except
in a medical context it might be a bit weird.
I don't think that being asked if I am a cis man would be any worse.
But would it be better, bearing in mind that being asked it (and
answering it) carries the implication that you agree with the whole cosntructed ideology which gives rise to it?
On 18/04/2025 17:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:23:41 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
None of which can be objectively determined.
On the contrary, all of them can be.
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
"Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
On 17/04/2025 03:25, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:21:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
Did "preferred pronouns" ever really matter?
I think they do when you are either expected to use ones which don't seem
appropriate (e.g. calling a man "she").
Well, quote. But we've already had that as an issue. My take: no-one can force me to use language in a way I believe to be erroneous.
And calling a male "she" is one such case.
However much more insidious is forcing people to "choose" pronouns, as is
forcing them to subscribe to a particular philosophical view - which is
contrary to the notion of freedom of belief. Which by definition
encompasses freedom from belief too.
There are plenty of *legal* cases where demanding an answer to a question
is compelled speech.
"So when did you stop beating your wife ?"
Has that question ever been known to be the turning point for a legal case?
On 18 Apr 2025 at 20:49:43 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:40, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:29, kat wrote:
I do think an
individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a
cis- woman
or man to their face.
Thank you for that Roger. I now feel I can express my feelings - that >>>> I would not like it.
I don't see it as a slur, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Someone might ask me "Are you a man, and were you born with male
genitalia?"
I might feel uncomfortable being asked that question, and frankly except >>> in a medical context it might be a bit weird.
I don't think that being asked if I am a cis man would be any worse.
But would it be better, bearing in mind that being asked it (and
answering it) carries the implication that you agree with the whole
cosntructed ideology which gives rise to it?
Unfortunately, that is simply not true. All it implies is that there are people around that you can't be sure of their biological sex just by looking at them. Why this is true, or the ideology behind it, doesn't matter; still less whether the person being asked agrees with it. What matters is entirely what *other* people might do or believe, that is why us unexceptional men might need to be asked - we can believe what we like but people with a duty to
provide single sex facilities still have to ask us.
On 18/04/2025 15:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 20:49:43 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:40, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:29, kat wrote:
I do think an
individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred to as a >>>>>> cis- woman
or man to their face.
Thank you for that Roger. I now feel I can express my feelings - that >>>>> I would not like it.
I don't see it as a slur, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Someone might ask me "Are you a man, and were you born with male
genitalia?"
I might feel uncomfortable being asked that question, and frankly except >>>> in a medical context it might be a bit weird.
I don't think that being asked if I am a cis man would be any worse.
But would it be better, bearing in mind that being asked it (and
answering it) carries the implication that you agree with the whole
cosntructed ideology which gives rise to it?
Unfortunately, that is simply not true. All it implies is that there are
people around that you can't be sure of their biological sex just by looking >> at them. Why this is true, or the ideology behind it, doesn't matter; still >> less whether the person being asked agrees with it. What matters is entirely >> what *other* people might do or believe, that is why us unexceptional men
might need to be asked - we can believe what we like but people with a duty to
provide single sex facilities still have to ask us.
Was that an answer to a different post? ;-)
On 18 Apr 2025 at 22:09:12 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 15:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 20:49:43 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:40, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:29, kat wrote:
I do think an individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred
to as a cis- woman or man to their face.
Thank you for that Roger. I now feel I can express my feelings - that >>>>>> I would not like it.
I don't see it as a slur, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Someone might ask me "Are you a man, and were you born with male
genitalia?"
I might feel uncomfortable being asked that question, and frankly except >>>>> in a medical context it might be a bit weird.
I don't think that being asked if I am a cis man would be any worse.
But would it be better, bearing in mind that being asked it (and
answering it) carries the implication that you agree with the whole
cosntructed ideology which gives rise to it?
Unfortunately, that is simply not true. All it implies is that there are >>> people around that you can't be sure of their biological sex just by looking
at them. Why this is true, or the ideology behind it, doesn't matter; still >>> less whether the person being asked agrees with it. What matters is entirely
what *other* people might do or believe, that is why us unexceptional men >>> might need to be asked - we can believe what we like but people with a duty to
provide single sex facilities still have to ask us.
Was that an answer to a different post? ;-)
It was a comprehensive refutation of "being asked" and "carries the implication that you agree with the whole ...". It doesn't You are being asked
a perfectly reasonable question because of the *behaviour* (not ideology) of other people and you can answer it without acknowledging anything except reality.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 22:44:49 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 16:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 22:09:12 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 15:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 20:49:43 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 17/04/2025 10:40, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:29, kat wrote:
I do think an individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred
to as a cis- woman or man to their face.
Thank you for that Roger. I now feel I can express my feelings - that >>>>>>>> I would not like it.
I don't see it as a slur, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Someone might ask me "Are you a man, and were you born with male >>>>>>> genitalia?"But would it be better, bearing in mind that being asked it (and
I might feel uncomfortable being asked that question, and frankly except
in a medical context it might be a bit weird.
I don't think that being asked if I am a cis man would be any worse. >>>
answering it) carries the implication that you agree with the whole >>>>>> cosntructed ideology which gives rise to it?
Unfortunately, that is simply not true. All it implies is that there are >>>>> people around that you can't be sure of their biological sex just by looking
at them. Why this is true, or the ideology behind it, doesn't matter; still
less whether the person being asked agrees with it. What matters is entirely
what *other* people might do or believe, that is why us unexceptional men >>>>> might need to be asked - we can believe what we like but people with a duty to
provide single sex facilities still have to ask us.
Was that an answer to a different post? ;-)
It was a comprehensive refutation of "being asked" and "carries the
implication that you agree with the whole ...". It doesn't You are being asked
a perfectly reasonable question because of the *behaviour* (not ideology) of
other people and you can answer it without acknowledging anything except >>> reality.
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did not
know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/she did.
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I will
not validate and with which I will not deal.
Oh, indeed, I comprehend that. But the question immediately above your question, in the post you were commenting on was "Are you a man, and were you born with male
genitalia?" You should have been clearer about what you were commenting on!
On 18/04/2025 16:24, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 22:09:12 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 15:10, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 20:49:43 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 17/04/2025 10:40, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:29, kat wrote:
I do think an individual is perfectly entitled to dislike being referred
to as a cis- woman or man to their face.
Thank you for that Roger. I now feel I can express my feelings - that >>>>>>> I would not like it.
I don't see it as a slur, but it makes me feel uncomfortable.
Someone might ask me "Are you a man, and were you born with male
genitalia?"
I might feel uncomfortable being asked that question, and frankly except >>>>>> in a medical context it might be a bit weird.
I don't think that being asked if I am a cis man would be any worse.
But would it be better, bearing in mind that being asked it (and
answering it) carries the implication that you agree with the whole
cosntructed ideology which gives rise to it?
Unfortunately, that is simply not true. All it implies is that there are >>>> people around that you can't be sure of their biological sex just by looking
at them. Why this is true, or the ideology behind it, doesn't matter; still
less whether the person being asked agrees with it. What matters is entirely
what *other* people might do or believe, that is why us unexceptional men >>>> might need to be asked - we can believe what we like but people with a duty to
provide single sex facilities still have to ask us.
Was that an answer to a different post? ;-)
It was a comprehensive refutation of "being asked" and "carries the
implication that you agree with the whole ...". It doesn't You are being asked
a perfectly reasonable question because of the *behaviour* (not ideology) of >> other people and you can answer it without acknowledging anything except
reality.
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did not
know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/she did.
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I will
not validate and with which I will not deal.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 23:20:26 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 19:04:27 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Today's judgment may no doubt have repercussions but I don't believe it >>>> obliges trans people to prove what sex they are before entering
women-only spaces or any other spaces.
I suspect that it obliges them to either do so when challenged or refrain from
entering some women-only spaces. This remains to be seen. But UK governments
seem to like inventing new crimes. Disciplinary action, of course, requires >>> proof only on the balance of probability.
I disagree, because there is nothing in the judgment to support such an
interpretation and also because of the obvious infringement of human
rights if the gatekeeper of the women-only spaces is going to say "you
look a bit male, you've got facial hair, you must prove to me that you
are a woman" regardless of actual biological sex.
The original Workplace whatever 1992 Act obliges employers to "provide" single
sex facilities. On any reasonable construction they aren't providing them if they allow the opposite sex to use them.
Detecting any offence is likely involve the infringement of some rights, I doubt that absolves the employer from trying. Of course, in practice, petite feminine-looking trans women are quite likely to pass if they don't raise the issue. If the trans woman is 6' 3" with an Adam's apple, broad shoulders, a deep voice and stubble then I think the manager has to man up (sic) and suggest to them they stop harrassing the women. Balance of probability is the rule for work discipline.
That might be how you'd like it to be. But I see nothing in the judgmentNor does it give nurses the right
to refuse to share changing rooms with trans colleagues. Nor does it
give JK Rowling the right to jeer at trans women and assert that they
are men. She might already have that right, unfortunately, because of
the Forstater precedent, but the Supreme Court decision does not affect >>>> that.
The law certainly gives the nurses' employer the *duty* to forbid holders of a
female GRC using the women's changing room. And I strongly suspect that gives
the nurses a right to complain if they do. Exactly what an employer needs to
do, or what it is reasonable for them to do, in order to enforce the rule >>> remains to be established.
to support such an interpretation. The fact that trans women cannot
enforce their rights as women under the Employment Act cannot possibly
create a new duty on employers to forbid trans people from having access
to spaces.
I think the reality is that the Supreme Court decision will have far
less impact than the chattering classes seem to think. So okay, trans
women cannot form part of a quota of women. But they remain entitled to
be regarded as women for the purpose of living their normal lives.
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans
judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case
or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people
can contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a
statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene.
Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of
a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation
requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an
absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't,
Parliament is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible
meaning and that will be the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties to
determine the consequences of each possible construction in order to
decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation and
tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as
they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out
what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the
conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single
sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right
in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would
his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful claim
of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Where there is a gender requirement for a woman prison officer to work
in a women's prison, will this now include trans men?
It depends on what the prison regulations say. I believe some men already work
in female prisons.
Given a trans female with full transition is unable to rape, then it's
not obvious why she should be committed to a male prison?
Such people are rare. But there are other forms of assault, including sexual assault, than rape. And men are generally stronger than women.
This whole subject was created out of a problem where the Scottish
Assembly thought it smart for GRC to be issued without any credibility.
The trans pressure groups' push in Scotland has backfired badly on the
trans community.
I think it was allowing self-identifying gender that the Scots did. They haven't changed the GRA, not sure they could.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:21:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
Did "preferred pronouns" ever really matter?
I think they do when you are either expected to use ones which don't seem
appropriate (e.g. calling a man "she").
However much more insidious is forcing people to "choose" pronouns, as is
forcing them to subscribe to a particular philosophical view - which is
contrary to the notion of freedom of belief. Which by definition
encompasses freedom from belief too.
There are plenty of *legal* cases where demanding an answer to a question
is compelled speech.
"So when did you stop beating your wife ?"
The following article appeared in the Telegraph in 2022, unfortunately I don’t have a link for it. It discusses some Whitehall department’s approach
to gender identity and pronouns:
Quote
Investigation into the Civil Service’s HR culture reveals an emphasis on identity politics and a drive to regulate language
THE Civil Service recognises dozens of genders, whistleblowers inside Whitehall have told The Daily Telegraph.
An investigation by this newspaper into HR culture inside central
government reveals that identity politics has infected all levels of the running of the country.
One mandarin was told in their performance review to spend 5 per cent of their corporate working time in a “non-binary network”, with a suggestion that they should attend a “gender-nonconforming book club”.
The Telegraph found major government departments organising events and workshops, as well as issuing language guidance, including:
• a World Afro Day to raise the problem of “hair bias against Afro hair”
• a ban on the use of the word “crazy” because of the offence to those with
mental health problems
• advice to no longer use terms such as “mother”, “father” and “ladies and
gentlemen” in documents and emails
• Trans Day of Remembrance for victims of transgender violence and a Transgender Day of Visibility to celebrate being transgender
• Bi-visibility day to raise awareness of “bisexual and biromantic erasure”
The number of gender identities recognised in Whitehall is not disclosed publicly but a mandarin, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that at meetings it was explained that personnel departments accepted the
legitimate use of more than 100 genders by civil servants. Genders are
noted on official HR documents for personnel records. The genders are also used in networking and in meetings where personal pronouns are being discussed.
A source said: “My colleagues and I were informed by HR that there are over 100 recognised gender identities in the Civil Service as staff are
permitted to self-identify their gender without any medical input and regardless of biological sex.
“This came as quite a surprise to me as I’d always thought there were only
two biological sexes.”
The Cabinet Office said: “Civil service HR does not centrally collect data on the gender of civil servants.”
But a source said: “There is no list of genders that departments are required to recognise. While there is not an infinite number of genders, there is no number limit on how many gender identities are recognised.”
Unquote
On 16/04/2025 18:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:48:13 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 11:37:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>> pretty bonkers.
Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can claim >>>>> direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if the
defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look feminine >>>>> enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis woman cannot >>>>> claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided
that they would discriminate against any other man too, and,
importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal; >>>> but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I
shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion.
I admit to some surprise.
Apparently multiple KCs who were asked by Good Law Project described For >>> Women's case as "not even arguable", and yet now we have a unanimous
Supreme Court judgement not only agreeing with it but possibly going
further even than they asked for. Surprise is a reasonable response.
I'm not surprised.
When you follow what outcomes any other ruling would have led to, it's
eminently sensible.
It also reinforces the government view that existing legislation was
quite enough to deal with the situation. Again, if you want to argue
otherwise you need to produce a situation to support that claim.
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
Asking for your ethnicity is bad enough, especially as it includes odd
things like Irish or Roma.
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene.
Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of a
statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation
requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an
absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't,
Parliament is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible
meaning and that will be the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties to
determine the consequences of each possible construction in order to
decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation and
tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as
they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out
what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the
conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 09:46:02 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 17/04/2025 09:28, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 22:16:04 +0100, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 16/04/2025 18:43, Jethro_uk wrote:an
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes
demanding your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in >>>>>> pronouns".
Well, possibly '<insert name here> does not believe in pronouns', >>>>> if
you^w Jethro_uk sees what I mean.
But why should that need to be stated in the first place ?
I'm not aware of anywhere that needs it, unlike requiring a title.
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by not
providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this bollocks" -
which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it *appears*
I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day without using any pronouns!
On 17/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a
disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using >>>> the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop
able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if
all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way to
predict
this.
snip
A few days ago we visited a nearby town, and the car park had a toilet
block. th etoilets inthis case were a number of separate cubicles
accessed from outside. The disabled one did need a key.
There were 4 cublicles for men - all I gather just with urinals. There
were 3 for women - all out of order. Why fewer for women?
There was also a unisex/baby changing cubicle. Anyone can use those.
(As we were leaving I saw a man come out of it - with his bike.)
So the facilities for women were bad, but the option for trans people
was there. And a still intact transwoman could of course use the
cubicles for me.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by not >>>> providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this bollocks" -
which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it
*appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not
recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your posts
contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day without using any
pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns that
his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to loss of job
or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred in the recent
past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I don't
think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me.
I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over such
things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans
judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case
or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people
can contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a
statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene.
Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of
a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation
requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an
absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't,
Parliament is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible
meaning and that will be the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties to
determine the consequences of each possible construction in order to
decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation and
tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as
they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out
what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the
conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:46:03 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans
judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case
or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people
can contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a
statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene.
Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of
a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation
requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an
absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't,
Parliament is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible
meaning and that will be the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties to
determine the consequences of each possible construction in order to
decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation and
tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as
they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out
what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the
conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
Of course, it is a shame she gets their "role" wrong. Their role is
interpret what Parliament wrote, and only secondarily to consider
other evidence of their intention if it is necessary to do so. Which,
of course, undermines her whole thesis. Not saying she is stupid, just
a little uneducated about the topic she discussing.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as
they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out
what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the
conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 17/04/2025 08:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
It depends on what the prison regulations say. I believe some men already work
in female prisons.
And, as I understand it, vice-versa.
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until they
get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary timetable
for an amendment.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I don't
think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me.
I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over such
things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
On 18/04/2025 17:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I don't >>> think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me.
I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over such
things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have no
problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
The King is also a Knight; the convention is to generally use just 'Sir'.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 23:08:07 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 08:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary
meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
As a matter of interest, what is its meaning (if any)?
If you remember your Latin, it's the opposite of trans. Means you've achieved getting through life so far without changing sex.
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans campaign
groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words
of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an absurd
or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't, Parliament
is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible meaning and
that will be the true construction of the provision.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as
they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out
what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the
conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
What she appears to be saying is that the Bill was badly drafted, and nobody spotted that at the time. Which may well be true.
But I don't think that amounts to a valid criticism of the UKSC.
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
On 2025-04-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 19:46:03 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as >>> they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out >>> what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the >>> conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
Of course, it is a shame she gets their "role" wrong. Their role is
interpret what Parliament wrote, and only secondarily to consider
other evidence of their intention if it is necessary to do so. Which,
of course, undermines her whole thesis. Not saying she is stupid, just
a little uneducated about the topic she discussing.
I think that's a bit unfair. Their role is to determine the will of Parliament. Interpreting what Parliament wrote is how they do that.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 15:33:50 BST, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 20:29:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a >>>>>> disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using >>>>> the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop >>>> able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if >>>> all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way to predict
this.
The keys are readily available online. You don't have to provide any
evidence of being disabled in order to buy one.
But you do have to remember to carry it.
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further clarification.
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did not
know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/she did.
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I will
not validate and with which I will not deal.
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did
not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/she
did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be one
of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and if so
whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I will
not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based on whether I wanted to divulge the information. I would not be agreeing to
some underlying ideology by answering.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I
understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
On 19/04/2025 11:16, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did
not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/she
did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be one
of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and if so
whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I will
not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based on
whether I wanted to divulge the information. I would not be agreeing to
some underlying ideology by answering.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking
ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
On this particular topic, I'm with the old-school. If someone asks me
"what are your preferred pronouns?" I think I'd reply "all of them, I
have no particular preference, I rather like the sound of the German
ones actually".
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
On 2025-04-18, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 18:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Otherwise to avoid creating concern/drama bite their lip and use the loo >>>> appropriate to their sex rather than their gender ... I realise most of >>>> the concern is about trans women in the ladies, but I have experienced >>>> the situation of a man being bothered by there being a trans man in the >>>> Gents.
Perhaps they should wear some sort of arm-band in public at all times
- a pink triangle or something - in order that people be apprised that
a disgusting sub-human is approaching and to give them time to cross
the road.
Hitler did it, of course.
But, to put it in perspective, the WP article on Salamone Rossi
(1570-1630 composer) says:
"Rossi was so well-thought of at this court that he was excused from
wearing the yellow badge that was required of other Jews in Mantua."
So, whilst you suggested this as "A Modest Proposal", there's a track
record of doing it.
Yes, when I suggested that those designated as untermenschen should
be forced to wear a coloured triangle on their clothing as public advertisement of their inferior status, I was entirely unaware of
any historical precedent for this. What an enormous coincidence it is
that exactly that plan has been enacted in the past.
On 17/04/2025 08:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
I confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single
sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right
in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would
his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful claim >>> of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Where there is a gender requirement for a woman prison officer to work
in a women's prison, will this now include trans men?
It depends on what the prison regulations say. I believe some men already work
in female prisons.
And, as I understand it, vice-versa.
Given a trans female with full transition is unable to rape, then it's
not obvious why she should be committed to a male prison?
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop >>>> trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-Ladies"? >>>
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further clarification. >>
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the Daily
Mail perhaps?
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed role
as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is
not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote.
unquote
But it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains the
law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to understand
the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on this topic, I
doubt if she will be receptive.
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans campaign
groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words
of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an absurd
or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't, Parliament
is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible meaning and
that will be the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties to determine the consequences of each possible construction in order to
decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation and
tossing a coin.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge >>>>> Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene.
Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of a
statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation
requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an
absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't,
Parliament is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible
meaning and that will be the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties to
determine the consequences of each possible construction in order to
decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation and
tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as
they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out
what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the
conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
On 2025-04-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 14:16:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans campaign
groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words
of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene. Curious.
Bizarrely or not, the EHRC intervened on the Scottish Ministers' side.
Perhaps you did not notice that?
Apparently you didn't notice that they did not. Paragraph 33 of the
judgement says that EHRC's intervention was basically "our longstanding policy aligns withe Scottish Ministers' position, but our policy is
wrong". Which is exactly what you'd expect an organisation to say that
used to be in favour of Equalities and Human Rights but has been
captured and is now subverted to fight against Equalities and Human
Rights.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 20:47:39 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 08:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityI confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful claim >>>> of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Where there is a gender requirement for a woman prison officer to work >>>> in a women's prison, will this now include trans men?
It depends on what the prison regulations say. I believe some men already work
in female prisons.
And, as I understand it, vice-versa.
Given a trans female with full transition is unable to rape, then it's >>>> not obvious why she should be committed to a male prison?
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Under present English law women can only be convicted of rape if they assist a
man to do so. Note that I am using "women" in a an Equality Act sense.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:01:37 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>>>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop >>>>> trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-Ladies"? >>>>
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further clarification. >>>
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the Daily
Mail perhaps?
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed role
as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman is a
female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is
not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote.
unquote
But it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains the
law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to understand
the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on this topic, I
doubt if she will be receptive.
Legally, trans women are women if they have a female GRC for all purposes except the exceptions in the text of the GRA and purposes excepted by other legislation as section 9.3 of the GRA allows.
On 18/04/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by
not providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this
bollocks" - which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it
*appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not
recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your
posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day without
using any pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns
that his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to loss
of job or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred in the
recent past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I
don't think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me.
I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over such
things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have
no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
Only one of those is part of an honours system.
The other is part of an aristocracy system.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament intended
with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it wrong, as
this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so far as
they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm pointing out
what I know about what parliament's intention was, which was not the
conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman- definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
What she appears to be saying is that the Bill was badly drafted, and
nobody spotted that at the time. Which may well be true. But I don't
think that amounts to a valid criticism of the UKSC.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:20:53 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On this particular topic, I'm with the old-school. If someone asks me
"what are your preferred pronouns?" I think I'd reply "all of them, I
have no particular preference, I rather like the sound of the German
ones actually".
If I considered myself non-binary I think I would want to adopt "it" and "it's". I'm surprised no-one appears to do so. Maybe it depends on one's attitude to humanity.
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape.
But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
On 17/04/2025 08:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
[quoted text muted]
And, as I understand it, vice-versa.
[quoted text muted]
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the >discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 18/04/2025 14:52, Norman Wells wrote:
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of a
statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation
requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an
absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't,
Parliament is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible
meaning and that will be the true construction of the provision.
That kind of assumes that Parliament is "natural and sensible".
I'm not
sure it was when it got involved in all this "trans" business, which,
really is just a matter of fashion and custom, which, as we all know,
can change radically from decade to decade.
On 16/04/2025 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong at
least
three of them.
The categories are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex, and sexual orientation.
I think I fall into all of them in one way or another. For example, I
assume that I can be discriminated against because I am not in a civil partnership, or because I am male?
On 19/04/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:20:53 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On this particular topic, I'm with the old-school. If someone asks me
"what are your preferred pronouns?" I think I'd reply "all of them, I
have no particular preference, I rather like the sound of the German
ones actually".
If I considered myself non-binary I think I would want to adopt "it" and
"it's". I'm surprised no-one appears to do so. Maybe it depends on one's
attitude to humanity.
The only problem with that is that "it's" is not a pronoun.
On 18/04/2025 21:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
Absolutely.
The morons have spoken in the press and have said that now it's time to repeal the Gender Recognition Act. However, a valid alternative would be
to tighten the Equality Act to provide for slighly better protection for trans people. Ultimately it's up to Parliament. Do we trust Parliament
to do the right thing? Or do our MPs usually prefer whatever crowd-
pleasing gestures will increase their majorities?
On 18/04/2025 14:52, Norman Wells wrote:
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge
Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans campaign
groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words
of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words of a
statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what the
intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one interpretation
requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it gives rise to an
absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but the other doesn't,
Parliament is assumed to have intended the more natural and sensible
meaning and that will be the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties to
determine the consequences of each possible construction in order to
decide between them.
To hear from them, perhaps, so that they can have their say. But the
Supreme Court (in fact, in common with the lower courts in the UK)
analyses the language of a statute as an academic exercise devoid of any concerns about whoever is holding banners or placards or megaphones
outside the court.
On 19/04/2025 11:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:01:37 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>>>>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop >>>>>> trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that >>>>>> affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-Ladies"? >>>>>
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the Daily
Mail perhaps?
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed role
as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman is a >>> female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is >>> not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote.
unquote
But it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains the >>> law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to understand >>> the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on this topic, I
doubt if she will be receptive.
Legally, trans women are women if they have a female GRC for all purposes
except the exceptions in the text of the GRA and purposes excepted by other >> legislation as section 9.3 of the GRA allows.
I think Rowling's eyes would glaze over if you told her that. She wants small easily
digested soundbites.
On 17/04/2025 07:55, Max Demian wrote:
On 16/04/2025 18:43, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 13:48:13 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 11:37:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so,
it's
pretty bonkers.
Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans woman can claim >>>>>> direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and only if the
defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they look feminine >>>>>> enough). Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis woman cannot >>>>>> claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided >>>>> that they would discriminate against any other man too, and,
importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal; >>>>> but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I >>>>> shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion.
I admit to some surprise.
Apparently multiple KCs who were asked by Good Law Project described
For
Women's case as "not even arguable", and yet now we have a unanimous
Supreme Court judgement not only agreeing with it but possibly going
further even than they asked for. Surprise is a reasonable response.
I'm not surprised.
When you follow what outcomes any other ruling would have led to, it's
eminently sensible.
It also reinforces the government view that existing legislation was
quite enough to deal with the situation. Again, if you want to argue
otherwise you need to produce a situation to support that claim.
My personal hope is we'll see less of these ubiquitous boxes demanding
your pronouns, with no option to say "I don't believe in pronouns".
Asking for your ethnicity is bad enough, especially as it includes odd
things like Irish or Roma.
Hmmm... I have always been entitled to answer "Irish" (I am entitled to citizenship and a passport), but never do so.
Of course, I prefer "British" to "English".
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:39:05 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the
purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape.
But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
If you were a woman, and personally aware of the risk of pregnancy, I don't think you would ask such a thoughtless question. I think the risk of STI is not insignificant either, though slightly less profound now that HIV is treatable.
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Articles are now being written on this, there is one on the BBC News
website by Alison Holt and James Melley:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74z04j23pwo
The third paragraph says:
"When the highest court in the land ruled that sex is binary - meaning legally it should be interpreted as referring to either a biological man
or a biological woman - it was providing clarity that had been missing
from such conversations for years."
The judgement transcript says:
"It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the
public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010."
It seems to me the BBC article should have qualified the third paragraph
to make clear the judgement only applies to the EA 2010.
Is that correct or have I misunderstood this?
On 16/04/2025 in message <9745341570.726a2863@uninhabited.net> Roger
Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Articles are now being written on this, there is one on the BBC News
website by Alison Holt and James Melley:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c74z04j23pwo
The third paragraph says:
"When the highest court in the land ruled that sex is binary - meaning legally it should be interpreted as referring to either a biological man
or a biological woman - it was providing clarity that had been missing
from such conversations for years."
The judgement transcript says:
"It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the
public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the
provisions of the EA 2010."
It seems to me the BBC article should have qualified the third paragraph
to make clear the judgement only applies to the EA 2010.
Is that correct or have I misunderstood this?
On 18/04/2025 14:12, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 18:37, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Otherwise to avoid creating concern/drama bite their lip and use the loo >>>>> appropriate to their sex rather than their gender ... I realise most of >>>>> the concern is about trans women in the ladies, but I have experienced >>>>> the situation of a man being bothered by there being a trans man in the >>>>> Gents.
Perhaps they should wear some sort of arm-band in public at all times
- a pink triangle or something - in order that people be apprised that >>>> a disgusting sub-human is approaching and to give them time to cross
the road.
Hitler did it, of course.
But, to put it in perspective, the WP article on Salamone Rossi
(1570-1630 composer) says:
"Rossi was so well-thought of at this court that he was excused from
wearing the yellow badge that was required of other Jews in Mantua."
So, whilst you suggested this as "A Modest Proposal", there's a track
record of doing it.
Yes, when I suggested that those designated as untermenschen should
be forced to wear a coloured triangle on their clothing as public
advertisement of their inferior status, I was entirely unaware of
any historical precedent for this. What an enormous coincidence it is
that exactly that plan has been enacted in the past.
My point was that it wasn't just a once-off.
Until recently, I wasn't aware that Mantua did this, so I'm very
impressed that you were. When did you first hear about it?
On 18/04/2025 15:38, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 14:16:31 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by a
barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick and to
complain that trans people, including the much respected trans judge >>>>> Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in the case or make
submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that trans people can
contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans campaign >>>> groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation of the words
of a statute, since they *were* allowed to intervene. Curious.
Bizarrely or not, the EHRC intervened on the Scottish Ministers' side.
Perhaps you did not notice that?
Apparently you didn't notice that they did not. Paragraph 33 of the
judgement says that EHRC's intervention was basically "our longstanding
policy aligns withe Scottish Ministers' position, but our policy is
wrong". Which is exactly what you'd expect an organisation to say that
used to be in favour of Equalities and Human Rights but has been
captured and is now subverted to fight against Equalities and Human
Rights.
I've looked at para 33 and it certainly doesn't say what you claim it says.
On 18 Apr 2025 16:30:33 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 15:33:50 BST, "Mark Goodge" >><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 20:29:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a >>>>>>> disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using >>>>>> the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop >>>>> able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if >>>>> all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way
to predict this.
The keys are readily available online. You don't have to provide any
evidence of being disabled in order to buy one.
But you do have to remember to carry it.
Put it on your keyring along with the others.
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 16/04/2025 om 17:31 schreef Max Demian:
On 16/04/2025 14:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 12:00:41 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
Maybe they will decide that "transgender" should be yet another
category
that we're not allowed to discriminate against (or, indeed, have an >>>>>> opinion about).
Who decides? How about trainspotters, or estate agents?
Who are a tiny bit out of date. The Equality Act (2010) specifically >>>>> outlaws
discrimination against people because of their transgender status.
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not allowed to >>>> discriminate against? Can I be on it?
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is
includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous. (Obviously someone who hasn't visited Slough).
On 19/04/2025 12:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:39:05 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the
purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape. >>> But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
If you were a woman, and personally aware of the risk of pregnancy, I don't >> think you would ask such a thoughtless question. I think the risk of STI is >> not insignificant either, though slightly less profound now that HIV is
treatable.
Humbug. And my questions are always thoughtful.
If you were a woman, you'd know that the risk of pregnancy is not a
major issue and many women end up using the morning after pill if they
have neglected to use contraception. If you were a woman you would know
that a dirty finger inserted into the vagina can produce unpleasant
urinary tract infections. But is your point that the main reason to criminalise rape is to protect women from sexually transmitted
infections? That seems implausible. The real traditional reason for criminalising rape is that it was a crime against the husband, a way of usurping the rightful son and heir by producing an interloper.
And what about the relatively new offence of rape via the mouth? How ridiculous is that? Would any woman say that it is more traumatic than
having a sharp object inserted into one of her orifices?
I doubt if the Law Commission would be interested in revisiting the law
on this topic, though. But it was Germaine Greer who once said that
there were far worse crimes against women than rape.
On 19/04/2025 11:34, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 21:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
Absolutely.
The morons have spoken in the press and have said that now it's time to >>repeal the Gender Recognition Act. However, a valid alternative would be
to tighten the Equality Act to provide for slighly better protection for >>trans people. Ultimately it's up to Parliament. Do we trust Parliament to >>do the right thing? Or do our MPs usually prefer whatever crowd- pleasing >>gestures will increase their majorities?
MPs depend on the public vote for their jobs. And the public depend on
them to do what the public wants. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.
Op 18/04/2025 om 12:29 schreef Max Demian:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 16/04/2025 om 17:31 schreef Max Demian:
Who compiles (and maintains) a list of those whom we are not
allowed to
discriminate against? Can I be on it?
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is
includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous. (Obviously someone who hasn't visited
Slough).
Am I missing something here? What has Slough got to do with Italians?
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I
understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
Do you never refer to
"TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always use the full term?
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did
not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/she
did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be one
of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and if so
whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I will
not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based on whether I wanted to divulge the information.
I would not be agreeing to
some underlying ideology by answering.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
On 19 Apr 2025 at 12:17:38 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:20:53 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On this particular topic, I'm with the old-school. If someone asks me
"what are your preferred pronouns?" I think I'd reply "all of them, I
have no particular preference, I rather like the sound of the German
ones actually".
If I considered myself non-binary I think I would want to adopt "it" and >>> "it's". I'm surprised no-one appears to do so. Maybe it depends on one's >>> attitude to humanity.
The only problem with that is that "it's" is not a pronoun.
Oh yes it is!
On 19/04/2025 08:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 12:17:38 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:20:53 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On this particular topic, I'm with the old-school. If someone asks me >>>>> "what are your preferred pronouns?" I think I'd reply "all of them, I >>>>> have no particular preference, I rather like the sound of the German >>>>> ones actually".
If I considered myself non-binary I think I would want to adopt "it" and >>>> "it's". I'm surprised no-one appears to do so. Maybe it depends on one's >>>> attitude to humanity.
The only problem with that is that "it's" is not a pronoun.
Oh yes it is!
Norman is right.
"It's" is not a pronoun. In full, it is rendered "it is". I am sure you
would not call that phrase a pronoun.
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I
understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to
"TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a trade name
as a generic) and the abbreviations threfore refer to things which are
not in dispute
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and surprising definition of "biological female".
On 19 Apr 2025 at 12:17:38 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:20:53 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On this particular topic, I'm with the old-school. If someone asks me
"what are your preferred pronouns?" I think I'd reply "all of them, I
have no particular preference, I rather like the sound of the German
ones actually".
If I considered myself non-binary I think I would want to adopt "it" and >>> "it's". I'm surprised no-one appears to do so. Maybe it depends on one's >>> attitude to humanity.
The only problem with that is that "it's" is not a pronoun.
Oh yes it is!
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the >purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape.
But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
On 18/04/2025 21:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by
a barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick
and to complain that trans people, including the much respected
trans judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in
the case or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that
trans people can contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation
of the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to
intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words
of a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what
the intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one
interpretation requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it
gives rise to an absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but
the other doesn't, Parliament is assumed to have intended the more
natural and sensible meaning and that will be the true
construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties
to determine the consequences of each possible construction in
order to decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation
and tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament
intended with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it
wrong, as this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so
far as they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm
pointing out what I know about what parliament's intention was,
which was not the conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
Absolutely.
The morons have spoken in the press and have said that now it's time
to repeal the Gender Recognition Act. However, a valid alternative
would be to tighten the Equality Act to provide for slighly better
protection for trans people.
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
On 18 Apr 2025 at 20:47:39 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 08:49, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 13:48:31 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityI confess to being lazy to read all the fine detail.
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
However some things are now thrown into confusion.
A trans male will be obliged to enter women's toilets and other single >>>> sex domains. Lets suppose Mr X attends a single sex (female) session
swimming or jacuzzi. Following a complain would the operators be right >>>> in asking the trans man, but biologically woman, to leave. If so, would >>>> his rights be compromised and the operator subject to a successful claim >>>> of discrimination?
The SC has not set rules for toilets.
Where there is a gender requirement for a woman prison officer to work >>>> in a women's prison, will this now include trans men?
It depends on what the prison regulations say. I believe some men already work
in female prisons.
And, as I understand it, vice-versa.
Given a trans female with full transition is unable to rape, then it's >>>> not obvious why she should be committed to a male prison?
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Under present English law women can only be convicted of rape if they assist a
man to do so.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:39:05 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the
purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape.
But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a person of any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing guidelines, is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and with the same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
I suspect, though, that any attempt by the government to remove the specific offence of rape would simply be met by howls of opposition from people who fail to understand that it's precisely the same offence as assault by penetration and therefore wrongly assume that the government is somehow legitimising, or at least downgrading, rape. And that's a fight that the government has no need to pick. It does no harm to leave rape on the table
as a sex-specific offence because in any equivalent scenario where rape does not, technically, apply there's a perfectly acceptable alternative charge. It's not as if a transman can get away with rape whereas a cisman can't. They'd be charged with difference offences, but the punishment, if
convicted, would be the same.
Mark
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put
about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop >>>> trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and
"Cis-Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the Daily
Mail perhaps?
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed role
as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is
not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote.
unquote
But it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains the
law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to understand
the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on this topic, I
doubt if she will be receptive.
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put
about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to
stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-
Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed
role as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman is
a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and
that is not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote.
unquote
What are your qualifications as a literary critic?i
But it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains
the law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to
understand the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on
this topic, I doubt if she will be receptive.
Dear me... the court said that the losers shouldn't feel "sore".
On 11:34 19 Apr 2025, The Todal said:
On 18/04/2025 21:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by
a barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick
and to complain that trans people, including the much respected
trans judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in
the case or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that
trans people can contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation
of the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to
intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words
of a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what
the intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one
interpretation requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it
gives rise to an absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but
the other doesn't, Parliament is assumed to have intended the more
natural and sensible meaning and that will be the true
construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties
to determine the consequences of each possible construction in
order to decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation
and tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament
intended with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it
wrong, as this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so
far as they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm
pointing out what I know about what parliament's intention was,
which was not the conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
Absolutely.
The morons have spoken in the press and have said that now it's time
to repeal the Gender Recognition Act. However, a valid alternative
would be to tighten the Equality Act to provide for slighly better
protection for trans people.
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons, schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process, revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
On 19/04/2025 08:19, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 12:17:38 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 11:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 11:20:53 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On this particular topic, I'm with the old-school. If someone asks me >>>>> "what are your preferred pronouns?" I think I'd reply "all of them, I >>>>> have no particular preference, I rather like the sound of the German >>>>> ones actually".
If I considered myself non-binary I think I would want to adopt "it"
and
"it's". I'm surprised no-one appears to do so. Maybe it depends on
one's
attitude to humanity.
The only problem with that is that "it's" is not a pronoun.
Oh yes it is!
Norman is right.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:39:05 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the
purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape.
But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a person of any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing guidelines, is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and with the same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
I suspect, though, that any attempt by the government to remove the specific offence of rape would simply be met by howls of opposition from people who fail to understand that it's precisely the same offence as assault by penetration and therefore wrongly assume that the government is somehow legitimising, or at least downgrading, rape. And that's a fight that the government has no need to pick. It does no harm to leave rape on the table
as a sex-specific offence because in any equivalent scenario where rape does not, technically, apply there's a perfectly acceptable alternative charge. It's not as if a transman can get away with rape whereas a cisman can't. They'd be charged with difference offences, but the punishment, if
convicted, would be the same.
Mark
On 19 Apr 2025 at 17:37:23 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:39:05 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the
purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape. >>> But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a person of >> any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing guidelines, >> is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and with the >> same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
I suspect, though, that any attempt by the government to remove the specific >> offence of rape would simply be met by howls of opposition from people who >> fail to understand that it's precisely the same offence as assault by
penetration and therefore wrongly assume that the government is somehow
legitimising, or at least downgrading, rape. And that's a fight that the
government has no need to pick. It does no harm to leave rape on the table >> as a sex-specific offence because in any equivalent scenario where rape does >> not, technically, apply there's a perfectly acceptable alternative charge. >> It's not as if a transman can get away with rape whereas a cisman can't.
They'd be charged with difference offences, but the punishment, if
convicted, would be the same.
Mark
I have already said in this thread that, while it may not be anything like the
most physically harmful form of violence, rape is a uniquely personal, horrifying and mentally destructive offence, quite apart from the risk of pregnancy and STI, and I think there are very sound grounds for retaining it.
As you say, it can do no harm to those who don't see it's particular horror to retain it anyway. FWIW, and I didn't mention it before so this justifies my
repeating myself (I think) it is also a very mentally harmful offence against men.
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons, schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process, revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
On 19/04/2025 17:09, Pamela wrote:
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process,
revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
I don't know that they're hate-filled, but they're certainly demanding, entitled, whingy and needy, which is perhaps even worse.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
It's a view.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put >>>>>> about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to >>>>>> stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that >>>>>> affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-
Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a cervix. >>
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a cervix
is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for
medical reasons.
These witless campaigners who demand that Starmer should state precisely
what a woman is, merely reveal their own shallow thinking. JK Rowling
the writer of fiction once said that people who menstruate should
properly be called women. Implying that women who are unable to
menstruate do not deserve to be called women.
She should creep into her sorting hat and think hard about all the harm
she has done.
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed
role as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman is
a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and
that is not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote.
unquote
What are your qualifications as a literary critic?i
A degree in English Literature from a reputable university.
But it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains
the law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to
understand the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on
this topic, I doubt if she will be receptive.
Dear me... the court said that the losers shouldn't feel "sore".
You must have been reading a version of the judgment that someone has
created on the internet.
On 19/04/2025 17:09, Pamela wrote:
On 11:34 19 Apr 2025, The Todal said:
On 18/04/2025 21:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by >>>>>>>> a barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick
and to complain that trans people, including the much respected >>>>>>>> trans judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in >>>>>>>> the case or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that >>>>>>>> trans people can contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation >>>>>>> of the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to
intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words
of a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what
the intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one
interpretation requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it
gives rise to an absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but
the other doesn't, Parliament is assumed to have intended the more >>>>>> natural and sensible meaning and that will be the true
construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties
to determine the consequences of each possible construction in
order to decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation
and tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament
intended with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it
wrong, as this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so
far as they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm
pointing out what I know about what parliament's intention was, >>>>> which was not the conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
Absolutely.
The morons have spoken in the press and have said that now it's time
to repeal the Gender Recognition Act. However, a valid alternative
would be to tighten the Equality Act to provide for slighly better
protection for trans people.
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process,
revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
I have been reading statements made by campaigners who say that women's rights were won over hundreds of years and should not be given away
without a fight, which sounds very moving and stirring but then you have
to think, what specific rights are these people talking about? The right
to have a separate toilet from the men? As opposed to the situation in
stone age or maybe mediaeval or maybe Victorian times when everyone dug
a hole in the ground and shared it?
So the obsession with toilets and changing rooms might make sense for
the genteel ladies of Scotland but actually it's an unhealthy obsession.
Who are these "many in the trans community" who bullied their way into women's spaces? These allegations are a modern version of "black
immigrants have bullied their way into white streets and have forced the occupants to leave and find somewhere else to live". It relies on old
wives tales, urban legends, a tiny handful of reports about trans
rapists in prisons. Pamela, it is you who are hate-filled and you
probably now feel that your beliefs are vindicated because most people
now share your hate.
On 19/04/2025 22:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 17:37:23 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:39:05 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the >>>> purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape. >>>> But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint >>>> as "assault by finger"?
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a person of >>> any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing guidelines,
is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape >>> any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and with the
same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
I suspect, though, that any attempt by the government to remove the specific
offence of rape would simply be met by howls of opposition from people who >>> fail to understand that it's precisely the same offence as assault by
penetration and therefore wrongly assume that the government is somehow
legitimising, or at least downgrading, rape. And that's a fight that the >>> government has no need to pick. It does no harm to leave rape on the table >>> as a sex-specific offence because in any equivalent scenario where rape does
not, technically, apply there's a perfectly acceptable alternative charge. >>> It's not as if a transman can get away with rape whereas a cisman can't. >>> They'd be charged with difference offences, but the punishment, if
convicted, would be the same.
Mark
I have already said in this thread that, while it may not be anything like the
most physically harmful form of violence, rape is a uniquely personal,
horrifying and mentally destructive offence, quite apart from the risk of
pregnancy and STI, and I think there are very sound grounds for retaining it.
As you say, it can do no harm to those who don't see it's particular horror
to retain it anyway. FWIW, and I didn't mention it before so this justifies my
repeating myself (I think) it is also a very mentally harmful offence against
men.
I think I may have met and spoken to more rape victims than you have,
and I find that quite often the other events in their lives, eg abusive childhoods, sometimes where the female parent figure is the abuser, have
a much more important influence on the person's ability to cope with
life and their suicidal ideation.
But, to look at it from a totally different viewpoint, if a woman or man
were to say that they were buggered with a blunt instrument which caused
them extreme pain and humiliation, it would be crass in the extreme for
you to respond with "well, how lucky that you weren't raped!".
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and surprising
definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
On 19/04/2025 22:08, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/04/2025 17:09, Pamela wrote:
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process,
revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
I don't know that they're hate-filled, but they're certainly
demanding, entitled, whingy and needy, which is perhaps even worse.
You could as easily be describing "refugees".
Tarring all of them with the same brush, based on a few unreliable
anecdotes. And displaying zero compassion, which is rather shameful.
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put >>>>>> about by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister
attempt to stop trans people even being allowed to talk in public
about issues that affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-
Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a
cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I
understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to
"TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a trade name
as a generic) and the abbreviations threfore refer to things which are
not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no language police, unfortunately.
On 19/04/2025 05:16, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did
not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/
she did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be one
of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and if so
whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I
will not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based
on whether I wanted to divulge the information.
What "information"?
The whole point is that is a entirely makey-uppy concept.
I would not be agreeing to some underlying ideology by answering.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking
ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
No. I do not carry any means of starting a fire.
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I
understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to
"TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a trade name
as a generic) and the abbreviations threfore refer to things which are
not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile claiming
it is
not part of the language by now! There are no language police,
unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I
understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to
"TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a trade name
as a generic) and the abbreviations threfore refer to things which are
not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile claiming it is >> not part of the language by now! There are no language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a person of any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing guidelines, is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and with the same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:31:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a cervix
is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for
medical reasons.
Uncontroversially, a trans man has been a woman
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and surprising
definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this offence as an
accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:05:44 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by >>>>>> not providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this
bollocks" - which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it
*appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not
recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your
posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day without
using any pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns
that his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to loss
of job or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred in the
recent past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I
don't think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me.
I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over such
things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have
no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
Only one of those is part of an honours system.
The other is part of an aristocracy system.
And my answer reflected the distinction.
Your go.
On 11:34 19 Apr 2025, The Todal said:
On 18/04/2025 21:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by
a barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick
and to complain that trans people, including the much respected
trans judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in
the case or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that
trans people can contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation
of the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to
intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words
of a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what
the intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one
interpretation requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it
gives rise to an absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but
the other doesn't, Parliament is assumed to have intended the more
natural and sensible meaning and that will be the true
construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties
to determine the consequences of each possible construction in
order to decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation
and tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament
intended with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it
wrong, as this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so
far as they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm
pointing out what I know about what parliament's intention was,
which was not the conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
Absolutely.
The morons have spoken in the press and have said that now it's time
to repeal the Gender Recognition Act. However, a valid alternative
would be to tighten the Equality Act to provide for slighly better
protection for trans people.
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons, schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process, revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put >>>>>> about by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to >>>>>> stop trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that >>>>>> affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-
Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until
they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality
Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a
cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix.
And having a cervix
is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for
medical reasons.
These witless campaigners who demand that Starmer should state precisely
what a woman is, merely reveal their own shallow thinking. JK Rowling
the writer of fiction once said that people who menstruate should
properly be called women. Implying that women who are unable to
menstruate do not deserve to be called women.
She should creep into her sorting hat and think hard about all the harm
she has done.
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed
role as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman
is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and
that is not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote.
unquote
What are your qualifications as a literary critic?i
A degree in English Literature from a reputable university.
But it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains
the law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to
understand the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on
this topic, I doubt if she will be receptive.
Dear me... the court said that the losers shouldn't feel "sore".
You must have been reading a version of the judgment that someone has
created on the internet.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 17:37:23 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:39:05 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the
purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape. >>> But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a person of >> any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing guidelines, >> is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and with the >> same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
I suspect, though, that any attempt by the government to remove the specific >> offence of rape would simply be met by howls of opposition from people who >> fail to understand that it's precisely the same offence as assault by
penetration and therefore wrongly assume that the government is somehow
legitimising, or at least downgrading, rape. And that's a fight that the
government has no need to pick. It does no harm to leave rape on the table >> as a sex-specific offence because in any equivalent scenario where rape does >> not, technically, apply there's a perfectly acceptable alternative charge. >> It's not as if a transman can get away with rape whereas a cisman can't.
They'd be charged with difference offences, but the punishment, if
convicted, would be the same.
Mark
I have already said in this thread that, while it may not be anything like the
most physically harmful form of violence, rape is a uniquely personal, horrifying and mentally destructive offence, quite apart from the risk of pregnancy and STI, and I think there are very sound grounds for retaining it.
As you say, it can do no harm to those who don't see it's particular horror to retain it anyway. FWIW, and I didn't mention it before so this justifies my
repeating myself (I think) it is also a very mentally harmful offence against men.
On 19/04/2025 22:08, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/04/2025 17:09, Pamela wrote:
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process,
revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
I don't know that they're hate-filled, but they're certainly
demanding, entitled, whingy and needy, which is perhaps even worse.
You could as easily be describing "refugees".
Tarring all of them with the same brush, based on a few unreliable
anecdotes. And displaying zero compassion, which is rather shameful.
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons, schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process, revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
I think that the fact that
somewhere between a quarter and three quarters (depending on source and definition of assault) of women have been assaulted by men, so a fear of men in private spaces is not quite as irrational as fear of black people (who really haven't assaulted more than half of all women).
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:45:13 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
So the obsession with toilets and changing rooms might make sense for
the genteel ladies of Scotland but actually it's an unhealthy obsession.
Who are these "many in the trans community" who bullied their way into
women's spaces? These allegations are a modern version of "black
immigrants have bullied their way into white streets and have forced the
occupants to leave and find somewhere else to live". It relies on old
wives tales, urban legends, a tiny handful of reports about trans
rapists in prisons. Pamela, it is you who are hate-filled and you
probably now feel that your beliefs are vindicated because most people
now share your hate.
While not fully supporting Pamela's views, I think that the fact that somewhere between a quarter and three quarters (depending on source and definition of assault) of women have been assaulted by men, so a fear of men in private spaces is not quite as irrational as fear of black people (who really haven't assaulted more than half of all women).
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 23:08:07 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 08:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not theThe direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they >>>>>> look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The
dictionary meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside
their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted >>>> clarification.
As a matter of interest, what is its meaning (if any)?
If you remember your Latin, it's the opposite of trans. Means you've
achieved getting through life so far without changing sex.
Indeed. It means "not trans", no more and no less. It only comes up
when it is necessary to indicate specifically that you are talking
about people who are not trans. Which is not a common requirement
in everyday conversation, of course.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:45:13 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 17:09, Pamela wrote:
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process,
revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
I have been reading statements made by campaigners who say that women's
rights were won over hundreds of years and should not be given away
without a fight, which sounds very moving and stirring but then you have
to think, what specific rights are these people talking about? The right
to have a separate toilet from the men? As opposed to the situation in
stone age or maybe mediaeval or maybe Victorian times when everyone dug
a hole in the ground and shared it?
So the obsession with toilets and changing rooms might make sense for
the genteel ladies of Scotland but actually it's an unhealthy obsession.
Who are these "many in the trans community" who bullied their way into
women's spaces? These allegations are a modern version of "black
immigrants have bullied their way into white streets and have forced the
occupants to leave and find somewhere else to live". It relies on old
wives tales, urban legends, a tiny handful of reports about trans
rapists in prisons. Pamela, it is you who are hate-filled and you
probably now feel that your beliefs are vindicated because most people
now share your hate.
While not fully supporting Pamela's views, I think that the fact that somewhere between a quarter and three quarters (depending on source and definition of assault) of women have been assaulted by men, so a fear of men in private spaces is not quite as irrational as fear of black people (who really haven't assaulted more than half of all women).
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:31:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put >>>>>>> about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to >>>>>>> stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that >>>>>>> affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-
Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until >>>>>> they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality >>>>>> Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a cervix. >>>
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a cervix
is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for
medical reasons.
Uncontroversially, a trans man has been a woman, and whether he is now depends
on your definition of "woman". And the second statement has a severe logic failure; having a cervix is proof of womanhood (at least at some time), but is
simply logically non-equivalent to the statment: not cervix implies not womanhood. The enemy may have claimed the second statement, but you didn't say
so.
These witless campaigners who demand that Starmer should state precisely
what a woman is, merely reveal their own shallow thinking. JK Rowling
the writer of fiction once said that people who menstruate should
properly be called women. Implying that women who are unable to
menstruate do not deserve to be called women.
Again, logic failure. Did she say people who don't menstruate are not women? If so, I agree with your criticism. But it is not entailed by saying the converse.
She should creep into her sorting hat and think hard about all the harm
she has done.
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed
role as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman is >>>> a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and
that is not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote.
unquote
What are your qualifications as a literary critic?i
A degree in English Literature from a reputable university.
For some purposes, Starmer's statement is still legally true, of course. The UKSC hasn't repealed the Gender Recognition Act.
But it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains
the law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to
understand the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on
this topic, I doubt if she will be receptive.
Dear me... the court said that the losers shouldn't feel "sore".
You must have been reading a version of the judgment that someone has
created on the internet.
I think Starmer should have answered the question in the manner of the famous panellist on the famous 1950s Home Service programme and said: "It depends what you mean by a woman." It is clearly context dependent.
On 2025-04-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put >>>>>>> about by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister
attempt to stop trans people even being allowed to talk in public >>>>>>> about issues that affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-
Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until >>>>>> they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality >>>>>> Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary
timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a
cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
Starmer has been asked many times what a woman is, and his answers have
never been remotely akin to a declaration that he "didn't know". They
have however got worse over time.
On 19/04/2025 22:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:45:13 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
So the obsession with toilets and changing rooms might make sense for
the genteel ladies of Scotland but actually it's an unhealthy obsession. >>> Who are these "many in the trans community" who bullied their way into
women's spaces? These allegations are a modern version of "black
immigrants have bullied their way into white streets and have forced the >>> occupants to leave and find somewhere else to live". It relies on old
wives tales, urban legends, a tiny handful of reports about trans
rapists in prisons. Pamela, it is you who are hate-filled and you
probably now feel that your beliefs are vindicated because most people
now share your hate.
While not fully supporting Pamela's views, I think that the fact that
somewhere between a quarter and three quarters (depending on source and
definition of assault) of women have been assaulted by men, so a fear
of men
in private spaces is not quite as irrational as fear of black people (who
really haven't assaulted more than half of all women).
Since a kiss on the lips or twanging a bra strap is classified by some
as a sexual assault, your figures are meaningless and uninterpretable without specifying exactly what is included.
We had this discussion fairly recently I recall over a similarly
unspecific Ofsted review disingenuously designed to elicit a knee-jerk response.
I didn't buy it then; I don't buy it now.
On 17/04/2025 11:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 23:08:07 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 08:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the >>>>>>>> latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are >>>>>>>> perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they >>>>>>> look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch. >>>>>>
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The
dictionary meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside
their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted >>>>> clarification.
As a matter of interest, what is its meaning (if any)?
If you remember your Latin, it's the opposite of trans. Means you've
achieved getting through life so far without changing sex.
Indeed. It means "not trans", no more and no less. It only comes up
when it is necessary to indicate specifically that you are talking
about people who are not trans. Which is not a common requirement
in everyday conversation, of course.
If someone identifies as non-binary, gender fluid, bissu ...
should they say they are 'trans' or 'not trans' or 'cis' ?
On 17/04/2025 17:53, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 20:07, Roger Hayter wrote:
There are nine categories in the Equality Act, and you must belong at
least
three of them.
The categories are: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and
civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief,
sex, and sexual orientation.
I think I fall into all of them in one way or another. For example, I
assume that I can be discriminated against because I am not in a civil
partnership, or because I am male?
You may also be a member of a group which it *is* permissible to
discriminate against, which, in practice will mean that you get it in
the neck in any case.
On 19/04/2025 22:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put >>>>>>>> about by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister
attempt to stop trans people even being allowed to talk in public >>>>>>>> about issues that affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis- >>>>>>> Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until >>>>>>> they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality >>>>>>> Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary >>>>>>> timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he >>>>>> doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman >>>>> is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a
cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
Starmer has been asked many times what a woman is, and his answers have
never been remotely akin to a declaration that he "didn't know". They
have however got worse over time.
How about you have a go at answering the question, then? What is a woman?
On 2025-04-20, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
How about you have a go at answering the question, then? What is a woman?
We discussed this twelve years ago. It depends on the context.
But for most everyday purposes, it's someone who says they're one.
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody and anybody in every situation.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody and
anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather make
that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
On 2025-04-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:23:41 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
None of which can be objectively determined.
Fortunately our justice system has invented these things called "judges".
On 18/04/2025 18:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:23:41 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians.
Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
None of which can be objectively determined.
Fortunately our justice system has invented these things called "judges".
We do. And they decided just what a woman is the other day. Fortunately.
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:31:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a cervix >>> is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for
medical reasons.
Uncontroversially, a trans man has been a woman
That's not uncontroversial.
On 19/04/2025 05:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:05:44 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by >>>>>>> not providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this
bollocks" - which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it
*appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not
recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your
posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day without >>>>>> using any pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns
that his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to
loss of job or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred in >>>>> the recent past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I
don't think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me.
I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over such
things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have
no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
Only one of those is part of an honours system.
The other is part of an aristocracy system.
And my answer reflected the distinction.
Your go.
Why did you emphasise the word "an"?
On 19/04/2025 22:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:31:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put >>>>>>>> about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to >>>>>>>> stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that >>>>>>>> affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis- >>>>>>> Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until >>>>>>> they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality >>>>>>> Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary >>>>>>> timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he >>>>>> doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman >>>>> is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a cervix >>> is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for
medical reasons.
Uncontroversially, a trans man has been a woman, and whether he is now depends
on your definition of "woman". And the second statement has a severe logic >> failure; having a cervix is proof of womanhood (at least at some time), but is
simply logically non-equivalent to the statment: not cervix implies not
womanhood. The enemy may have claimed the second statement, but you didn't say
so.
Anyone attempting to produce a reliable definition of "what is a woman"
would have to do rather better than "was probably born with a cervix".
And would have to do considerably better than "Adult Human Female!".
snip
On 2025-04-20, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody
and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather
make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable
adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
That's an impressive tyre-screeching, rubber-burning U-turn you perform between your first paragraph, where you're in favour of accommodating peoples' needs in society and your second, where you're against it.
On 17/04/2025 11:20, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 23:08:07 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 08:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the >>>>>>>> latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are >>>>>>>> perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they >>>>>>> look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch. >>>>>>
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The
dictionary meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside
their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted >>>>> clarification.
As a matter of interest, what is its meaning (if any)?
If you remember your Latin, it's the opposite of trans. Means you've
achieved getting through life so far without changing sex.
Indeed. It means "not trans", no more and no less. It only comes up
when it is necessary to indicate specifically that you are talking
about people who are not trans. Which is not a common requirement
in everyday conversation, of course.
If someone identifies as non-binary, gender fluid, bissu ...
should they say they are 'trans' or 'not trans' or 'cis' ?
On 19/04/2025 17:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a
person of
any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing
guidelines,
is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape
I see a minimum of 4 years for rape, community order for assault by penetration.
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and
with the
same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
Not if the penetration is of the mouth.
On 20/04/2025 08:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/04/2025 22:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
While not fully supporting Pamela's views, I think that the fact that
somewhere between a quarter and three quarters (depending on source and
definition of assault) of women have been assaulted by men, so a fear
of men
in private spaces is not quite as irrational as fear of black people
(who
really haven't assaulted more than half of all women).
Since a kiss on the lips or twanging a bra strap is classified by some
as a sexual assault, your figures are meaningless and uninterpretable
without specifying exactly what is included.
We had this discussion fairly recently I recall over a similarly
unspecific Ofsted review disingenuously designed to elicit a knee-jerk
response.
I didn't buy it then; I don't buy it now.
More to the point, I would suggest that zero women have been assaulted
in toilets or changing rooms by men who are dressed as women. Thats
zero, nada, zilch.
It's a paranoid delusion.
Instead, look to the menfolk who have met them on dating sites, who give
them bunches of roses, take them out to dinner, then regard it as their
due to expect sexual intercourse, often with the added excitement of
partial strangulation.
On 20/04/2025 08:45, Norman Wells wrote:
On 19/04/2025 22:38, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:45:13 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
So the obsession with toilets and changing rooms might make sense for
the genteel ladies of Scotland but actually it's an unhealthy obsession. >>>> Who are these "many in the trans community" who bullied their way into >>>> women's spaces? These allegations are a modern version of "black
immigrants have bullied their way into white streets and have forced the >>>> occupants to leave and find somewhere else to live". It relies on old
wives tales, urban legends, a tiny handful of reports about trans
rapists in prisons. Pamela, it is you who are hate-filled and you
probably now feel that your beliefs are vindicated because most people >>>> now share your hate.
While not fully supporting Pamela's views, I think that the fact that
somewhere between a quarter and three quarters (depending on source and
definition of assault) of women have been assaulted by men, so a fear
of men
in private spaces is not quite as irrational as fear of black people (who >>> really haven't assaulted more than half of all women).
Since a kiss on the lips or twanging a bra strap is classified by some
as a sexual assault, your figures are meaningless and uninterpretable
without specifying exactly what is included.
We had this discussion fairly recently I recall over a similarly
unspecific Ofsted review disingenuously designed to elicit a knee-jerk
response.
I didn't buy it then; I don't buy it now.
More to the point, I would suggest that zero women have been assaulted
in toilets or changing rooms by men who are dressed as women. Thats
zero, nada, zilch.
It's a paranoid delusion.
Instead, look to the menfolk who have met them on dating sites, who give
them bunches of roses, take them out to dinner, then regard it as their
due to expect sexual intercourse, often with the added excitement of
partial strangulation.
On 19/04/2025 17:09, Pamela wrote:
On 11:34 19 Apr 2025, The Todal said:
On 18/04/2025 21:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run
by a barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the
stick and to complain that trans people, including the much
respected trans judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to
intervene in the case or make submissions. There is nothing
whatsoever that trans people can contribute to the forensic
interpretation of the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic
interpretation of the words of a statute, since they *were*
allowed to intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the
words of a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to
consider what the intention of Parliament was when enacting it.
If one interpretation requires giving it an unnatural meaning or
if it gives rise to an absurd or obviously undesirable
consequence but the other doesn't, Parliament is assumed to have
intended the more natural and sensible meaning and that will be
the true construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected
parties to determine the consequences of each possible
construction in order to decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid
isolation and tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament
intended with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got
it wrong, as this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in
so far as they've sought to interpret parliament's
intention, I'm pointing out what I know about what
parliament's intention was, which was not the conclusions
they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
Absolutely.
The morons have spoken in the press and have said that now it's
time to repeal the Gender Recognition Act. However, a valid
alternative would be to tighten the Equality Act to provide for
slighly better protection for trans people.
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully bully
their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the
process, revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
transgressors any but the minimum rights.
I have been reading statements made by campaigners who say that
women's rights were won over hundreds of years and should not be
given away without a fight, which sounds very moving and stirring but
then you have to think, what specific rights are these people talking
about? The right to have a separate toilet from the men? As opposed
to the situation in stone age or maybe mediaeval or maybe Victorian
times when everyone dug a hole in the ground and shared it?
So the obsession with toilets and changing rooms might make sense for
the genteel ladies of Scotland but actually it's an unhealthy
obsession. Who are these "many in the trans community" who bullied
their way into women's spaces? These allegations are a modern version
of "black immigrants have bullied their way into white streets and
have forced the occupants to leave and find somewhere else to live".
It relies on old wives tales, urban legends, a tiny handful of
reports about trans rapists in prisons. Pamela, it is you who are
hate-filled and you probably now feel that your beliefs are
vindicated because most people now share your hate.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 17:09:42 BST, Pamela wrote:
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process,
revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
Where do you get this information? If anything, you sound to be the hate-filled one.
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 2025-04-20, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody and
anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather make
that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable
adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
That's an impressive tyre-screeching, rubber-burning U-turn you perform between your first paragraph, where you're in favour of accommodating peoples' needs in society and your second, where you're against it.
On 18/04/2025 04:48, kat wrote:
On 17/04/2025 21:29, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the
trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a >>>>>> disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using >>>>> the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop >>>> able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if >>>> all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way to predict
this.
snip
A few days ago we visited a nearby town, and the car park had a toilet block.
th etoilets inthis case were a number of separate cubicles accessed from
outside. The disabled one did need a key.
There were 4 cublicles for men - all I gather just with urinals. There were 3
for women - all out of order. Why fewer for women?
There was also a unisex/baby changing cubicle. Anyone can use those. (As we
were leaving I saw a man come out of it - with his bike.)
Well, it's a while back now, but er...
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7095134.stm>
So the facilities for women were bad, but the option for trans people was
there. And a still intact transwoman could of course use the cubicles for me.
Was there an "n" missing there?
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>>>>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop >>>>>> trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that >>>>>> affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis- Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until they >>>>> get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality Act. >>>>> Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary timetable for
an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he doesn't >>>> know what a woman is and might be in need of further clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman is". >>> Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was asked >> reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a cervix is not
proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for medical reasons.
These witless campaigners who demand that Starmer should state precisely what a
woman is, merely reveal their own shallow thinking.
On 19/04/2025 17:09, Pamela wrote:
On 11:34 19 Apr 2025, The Todal said:
On 18/04/2025 21:16, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:46:03 +0100, Pamela wrote:
On 14:52 18 Apr 2025, Norman Wells said:definition-at-odds-with-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant>
On 18/04/2025 14:16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
I also found it disappointing that the Good Law Project, run by >>>>>>>> a barrister, seemed to get totally the wrong end of the stick
and to complain that trans people, including the much respected >>>>>>>> trans judge Victoria McCloud, were not allowed to intervene in >>>>>>>> the case or make submissions. There is nothing whatsoever that >>>>>>>> trans people can contribute to the forensic interpretation of
the words of a statute.
Yet apparently there was a great deal that multiple anti-trans
campaign groups *could* contribute to the forensic interpretation >>>>>>> of the words of a statute, since they *were* allowed to
intervene. Curious.
Where there is more than one possible interpretation of the words
of a statute, it is incumbent on the interpreter to consider what
the intention of Parliament was when enacting it. If one
interpretation requires giving it an unnatural meaning or if it
gives rise to an absurd or obviously undesirable consequence but
the other doesn't, Parliament is assumed to have intended the more >>>>>> natural and sensible meaning and that will be the true
construction of the provision.
It may well be relevant to hear from potentially affected parties
to determine the consequences of each possible construction in
order to decide between them.
It's not just a matter of the court sitting in splendid isolation
and tossing a coin.
Melanie Field has some views about what she thinks Parliament
intended with the Equality Act and how the recent court case got it
wrong, as this article discusses. She says
"Their role is interpreting parliament's intention and, in so >>>>> far as they've sought to interpret parliament's intention, I'm >>>>> pointing out what I know about what parliament's intention was, >>>>> which was not the conclusions they have come to"
<https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/18/ruling-on-woman-
Parliament is always free to correct the court if needs be.
Absolutely.
The morons have spoken in the press and have said that now it's time
to repeal the Gender Recognition Act. However, a valid alternative
would be to tighten the Equality Act to provide for slighly better
protection for trans people.
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process,
revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
I have been reading statements made by campaigners who say that women's rights
were won over hundreds of years and should not be given away without a fight, which sounds very moving and stirring but then you have to think, what specific
rights are these people talking about? The right to have a separate toilet from
the men? As opposed to the situation in stone age or maybe mediaeval or maybe Victorian times when everyone dug a hole in the ground and shared it?
On 19 Apr 2025 at 17:37:23 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 11:39:05 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
On 19/04/2025 09:19, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
Perhaps it's time to amend the Sexual Offences Act.
A person without a penis - perhaps because it has been removed for the
purpose of transitioning from male to female - cannot be guilty of rape. >>> But do we really need rape as a separate category of offence? As quaint
as "assault by finger"?
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a person of >> any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing guidelines, >> is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and with the >> same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
I suspect, though, that any attempt by the government to remove the specific >> offence of rape would simply be met by howls of opposition from people who >> fail to understand that it's precisely the same offence as assault by
penetration and therefore wrongly assume that the government is somehow
legitimising, or at least downgrading, rape. And that's a fight that the
government has no need to pick. It does no harm to leave rape on the table >> as a sex-specific offence because in any equivalent scenario where rape does >> not, technically, apply there's a perfectly acceptable alternative charge. >> It's not as if a transman can get away with rape whereas a cisman can't.
They'd be charged with difference offences, but the punishment, if
convicted, would be the same.
Mark
I have already said in this thread that, while it may not be anything like the
most physically harmful form of violence, rape is a uniquely personal, horrifying and mentally destructive offence, quite apart from the risk of pregnancy and STI, and I think there are very sound grounds for retaining it.
As you say, it can do no harm to those who don't see it's particular horror to retain it anyway. FWIW, and I didn't mention it before so this justifies my
repeating myself (I think) it is also a very mentally harmful offence against men.
I have already said in this thread that, while it may not be anything like the >most physically harmful form of violence, rape is a uniquely personal, >horrifying and mentally destructive offence, quite apart from the risk of >pregnancy and STI, and I think there are very sound grounds for retaining it.
As you say, it can do no harm to those who don't see it's particular horror
to retain it anyway. FWIW, and I didn't mention it before so this justifies my >repeating myself (I think) it is also a very mentally harmful offence against >men.
On 19/04/2025 17:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a person of >> any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing guidelines, >> is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape
I see a minimum of 4 years for rape, community order for assault by
penetration.
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and with the >> same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
Not if the penetration is of the mouth.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 22:46:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and surprising >>>> definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this offence as an >>> accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
If surgeons can provide biological females with a functional penis
capable of involuntary (on the part of the victim) penetration, then I
have learnt a new fact, as perhaps have several of us. Of course it is
all more credible if the victim is unconscious, which is not a rare
situation during rape. Thank you. Do you have any cases?
On 19 Apr 2025 at 23:56:21 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:31:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>> However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a cervix >>>> is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for
medical reasons.
Uncontroversially, a trans man has been a woman
That's not uncontroversial.
In which universe?
On 19/04/2025 19:23, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:16, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did
not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/
she did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be
one of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and
if so whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I
will not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based
on whether I wanted to divulge the information.
What "information"?
Whether I was born male.
The whole point is that is a entirely makey-uppy concept.
There's nothing makey-uppy about it. It's a simple question. No
different from whether you have always had flat feet.
I would not be agreeing to some underlying ideology by answering.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking
ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
No. I do not carry any means of starting a fire.
So, what ideology are you supposedly subscribing to by saying that?
On 20 Apr 2025 at 10:59:36 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Anyone attempting to produce a reliable definition of "what is a woman"
would have to do rather better than "was probably born with a cervix".
And would have to do considerably better than "Adult Human Female!".
snip
Any honest person being asked to produce a definition of a woman should ask whether they are being required to produce a political view of how the word should be used (and saying how a word should be used is futile except as a populist slogan, on either side), or whether they being asked who should be regarded as a woman for a particular purpose, or lastly whether they
are being asked for a dictionary definition of the word woman. In the
last case the only possible answer is that it is word used with
different meanings in different contexts by different people so it has several dictionary definitions; like many words.
If we could ever get away from populist sloganising on both sides,
which seems unlikely, the correct political answer to the question is
that it depends on the purpose for which it is necessary to decide who
is a woman. Anyone who says this is likely to be reviled by all sides.
On 20/04/2025 03:01, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:23, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:16, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did >>>>> not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/
she did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be
one of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and
if so whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I
will not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based
on whether I wanted to divulge the information.
What "information"?
Whether I was born male.
The whole point is that is a entirely makey-uppy concept.
There's nothing makey-uppy about it. It's a simple question. No
different from whether you have always had flat feet.
Other than in a medical context, why would it be any of someone else's business?
The idea that there is something so remarkable (abnormal) about being
normal is the made-up concept.
I would not be agreeing to some underlying ideology by answering.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking
ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
No. I do not carry any means of starting a fire.
So, what ideology are you supposedly subscribing to by saying that?
None, other than a belief in being truthful.
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I
understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to
"TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a trade name >>>> as a generic) and the abbreviations threfore refer to things which are >>>> not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile claiming
it is
not part of the language by now! There are no language police,
unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but that doesn't make any difference to reality.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody and
anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather make
that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade swooped in and
made them their own.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:00:21 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:05:44 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question by >>>>>>>> not providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this
bollocks" - which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it >>>>>>>> *appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not
recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your >>>>>>> posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day without >>>>>>> using any pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns >>>>>> that his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to
loss of job or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred in >>>>>> the recent past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I >>>>>> don't think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me.
I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over such >>>>> things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have >>>>> no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
Only one of those is part of an honours system.
The other is part of an aristocracy system.
And my answer reflected the distinction.
Your go.
Why did you emphasise the word "an"?
Did I ?
On 19/04/2025 22:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:31:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
JK Rowling
the writer of fiction once said that people who menstruate should
properly be called women. Implying that women who are unable to
menstruate do not deserve to be called women.
Again, logic failure. Did she say people who don't menstruate are not
women?
If so, I agree with your criticism. But it is not entailed by saying the
converse.
Actually what happened was that she complained about a bulletin or
guidance note which was directed at "people who menstruate". She
facetiously said `'I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
Implicitly she was saying that even if the advice was not aimed at
people who don't menstruate (children, post-menopausal women, women who
have had surgery or who have dysfunctional hormones) the advice should
have been addressed to "women".
That's the mindless sorting-hat mentality of a mediocre children's author.
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 10:59:36 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> Anyone attempting to produce a reliable definition of "what is a woman"
would have to do rather better than "was probably born with a cervix".
And would have to do considerably better than "Adult Human Female!".
snip
Any honest person being asked to produce a definition of a woman should ask >> whether they are being required to produce a political view of how the word >> should be used (and saying how a word should be used is futile except as a >> populist slogan, on either side), or whether they being asked who should be >> regarded as a woman for a particular purpose, or lastly whether they
are being asked for a dictionary definition of the word woman. In the
last case the only possible answer is that it is word used with
different meanings in different contexts by different people so it has
several dictionary definitions; like many words.
If we could ever get away from populist sloganising on both sides,
which seems unlikely, the correct political answer to the question is
that it depends on the purpose for which it is necessary to decide who
is a woman. Anyone who says this is likely to be reviled by all sides.
No - only the anti-trans side will revile that answer. Indeed it's
the one I just gave earlier today, and 13 years ago also (when
I was reviled for it by the anti-trans people).
On 20/04/2025 00:04, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 19/04/2025 17:37, Mark Goodge wrote:
I see a minimum of 4 years for rape, community order for assault by
We've got "assault by penetration", which can be committed by a a
person of
any biological or legal sex, and, for the sake of the sentencing
guidelines,
is equivalent to rape. So we don't really need a separate offence of rape >>
penetration.
any more. We could just prosecute it as assault by penetration, and
with the
same outcome if the defendant is convicted.
Not if the penetration is of the mouth.
There was a woman in the news recently who *died* as a result of
penetration of the mouth by a man's penis. (I think she was unconscious
on a park bench.) It was never quite explained how. Choking? Seems
analogous to "death by a single punch".
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 22:46:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and surprising >>>>> definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this offence as an >>>> accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
If surgeons can provide biological females with a functional penis
capable of involuntary (on the part of the victim) penetration, then I
have learnt a new fact, as perhaps have several of us. Of course it is
all more credible if the victim is unconscious, which is not a rare
situation during rape. Thank you. Do you have any cases?
Sorry, what is it you are doubting here? The existence of phalloplasty?
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal
1 in 100 people.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while
approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal
1 in 100 people.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while
approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
On 20 Apr 2025 at 16:31:08 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 03:01, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:23, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:16, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did >>>>>> not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/ >>>>>> she did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be
one of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and
if so whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I
will not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based >>>>> on whether I wanted to divulge the information.
What "information"?
Whether I was born male.
The whole point is that is a entirely makey-uppy concept.
There's nothing makey-uppy about it. It's a simple question. No
different from whether you have always had flat feet.
Other than in a medical context, why would it be any of someone else's
business?
The idea that there is something so remarkable (abnormal) about being
normal is the made-up concept.
The obvious reason for asking it is one that you would surely approve of. To identify people who were *not* born as men when it is necessary or proportionate to do so.
I would not be agreeing to some underlying ideology by answering.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking >>>>> ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
No. I do not carry any means of starting a fire.
So, what ideology are you supposedly subscribing to by saying that?
None, other than a belief in being truthful.
Precisely. Answering a simple question the implications of which you do not object to is not supporting any particular ideology.
On 19/04/2025 21:31, The Todal wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is
put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt
to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that >>>>>>> affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis-
Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it
until they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the
Equality Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy
parliamentary timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he
doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman
is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a
cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
"99.9% of women do not have a penis".
I don't think he was referring to transmen somehow.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a
cervix is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed
for medical reasons.
Lammy reckons men can "grow a cervix".
These witless campaigners who demand that Starmer should state
precisely what a woman is, merely reveal their own shallow thinking.
Starmer and Lammy display their's.
On 20 Apr 2025 at 16:21:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 10:59:36 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>> Anyone attempting to produce a reliable definition of "what is a woman" >>>> would have to do rather better than "was probably born with a cervix". >>>> And would have to do considerably better than "Adult Human Female!".
snip
Any honest person being asked to produce a definition of a woman
should ask whether they are being required to produce a political
view of how the word should be used (and saying how a word should be
used is futile except as a populist slogan, on either side), or
whether they being asked who should be regarded as a woman for a
particular purpose, or lastly whether they are being asked for a
dictionary definition of the word woman. In the last case the only
possible answer is that it is word used with different meanings in
different contexts by different people so it has several dictionary
definitions; like many words.
If we could ever get away from populist sloganising on both sides,
which seems unlikely, the correct political answer to the question is
that it depends on the purpose for which it is necessary to decide who
is a woman. Anyone who says this is likely to be reviled by all sides.
No - only the anti-trans side will revile that answer. Indeed it's
the one I just gave earlier today, and 13 years ago also (when
I was reviled for it by the anti-trans people).
I suspect there is a strand of extreme trans ideology which will
insist that a trans woman is a woman for all purposes, and any
dilution of that principle is a hate crime. You are fortunate if you
have not come across this view.
On 20 Apr 2025 at 15:49:49 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 22:46:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and
surprising definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this
offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
If surgeons can provide biological females with a functional penis
capable of involuntary (on the part of the victim) penetration, then I
have learnt a new fact, as perhaps have several of us. Of course it is
all more credible if the victim is unconscious, which is not a rare
situation during rape. Thank you. Do you have any cases?
Sorry, what is it you are doubting here? The existence of phalloplasty?
No, its effectiveness.
On 04:21 20 Apr 2025, RJH said:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 17:09:42 BST, Pamela wrote:
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons,
schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process,
revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
Where do you get this information? If anything, you sound to be the
hate-filled one.
I wonder if you read the term "bully" in a different way than I used it?
I
did not mean the trans people I refer to physically pushed or forced their way into toilets etc etc, as you might gather from my comment that they overplayed their hand.
Their insistence of taking part in women's sports, having NHS health
notices modified, serving time in a women's prison, and so on became
almost pathological.
There was little meaningful outcome to be gained by
causing such deliberate offense and distress. It is no surprise to see surveys finding that an astonishingly large proportion of trans people
suffer from serious mental illness. However that does not excuse their hostility.
On 19/04/2025 22:34, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:31:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman >>>>> is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is >>>>>>>> put about by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister >>>>>>>> attempt to stop trans people even being allowed to talk in public >>>>>>>> about issues that affect them.Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis- >>>>>>> Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it
until they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the
Equality Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy
parliamentary timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he >>>>>> doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was
asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a
cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a
cervix is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed
for medical reasons.
Uncontroversially, a trans man has been a woman, and whether he is now
depends on your definition of "woman". And the second statement has a
severe logic failure; having a cervix is proof of womanhood (at least
at some time), but is simply logically non-equivalent to the statment:
not cervix implies not womanhood. The enemy may have claimed the second
statement, but you didn't say so.
Anyone attempting to produce a reliable definition of "what is a woman"
would have to do rather better than "was probably born with a cervix".
And would have to do considerably better than "Adult Human Female!".
These witless campaigners who demand that Starmer should state
precisely what a woman is, merely reveal their own shallow thinking.
JK Rowling the writer of fiction once said that people who menstruate
should properly be called women. Implying that women who are unable
to menstruate do not deserve to be called women.
Again, logic failure. Did she say people who don't menstruate are not
women? If so, I agree with your criticism. But it is not entailed by
saying the converse.
Actually what happened was that she complained about a bulletin or
guidance note which was directed at "people who menstruate". She
facetiously said `'I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
Implicitly she was saying that even if the advice was not aimed at
people who don't menstruate (children, post-menopausal women, women who
have had surgery or who have dysfunctional hormones) the advice should
have been addressed to "women".
That's the mindless sorting-hat mentality of a mediocre children's
author.
I suppose she was making the point that a trans man, who continues to menstruate, has no right to think of himself as male and should be
forced back into the role of being a woman.
women-trans-rights-f7kwzv2ttWhatever answer he gives will always be seen as evasive or ignorant byShe should creep into her sorting hat and think hard about all the
harm she has done.
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed
role as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman
is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women,
and that is not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote. >>>>>
unquote
What are your qualifications as a literary critic?i
A degree in English Literature from a reputable university.
For some purposes, Starmer's statement is still legally true, of
course. The UKSC hasn't repealed the Gender Recognition Act.
You must have been reading a version of the judgment that someone hasBut it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains >>>>> the law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to
understand the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on
this topic, I doubt if she will be receptive.
Dear me... the court said that the losers shouldn't feel "sore".
created on the internet.
I think Starmer should have answered the question in the manner of the
famous panellist on the famous 1950s Home Service programme and said:
"It depends what you mean by a woman." It is clearly context dependent.
the anti-trans lobby. Even now, no doubt.
I think the fact of the matter is that the anti-trans people believe
that the wise judges of the Supreme Court have issued blanket permission
to the nation to say that trans women are men in drag, or mentally ill people, or predatory perverts.
And maybe some people genuinely believe that, but the kindest thing
would be to keep their opinions to themselves.
Interesting piece in the Times today. Proving that the Scottish ladies
do not actually represent all, or even necessarily a majority, of women.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-supreme-court-decision-
quotes
Younger people are more likely than their parents to disagree with the Supreme Court decision last week that only biological women are women
under UK law
Wright, 23, from London, has been avoiding the argument she anticipates
will eventually erupt when her family sit down for Easter lunch this
weekend. “My mum is an old-school feminist,” she said. “I get she’s from
the generation where women really had to fight for equality but I just don’t think trans people having rights takes away from my rights as a
cis woman. It’s infuriating having to hear their recycled arguments
about loos and pronouns.”
According to a YouGov survey conducted last year, 61 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds think transgender people should be able to identify as
being of a different gender to the one recorded at birth, compared to
only 36 per cent of those aged 65 and older and 47 per cent of those
aged 50 to 64.
Melissa Meadows, 31, is a mental health nursing student from Scotland. “I’m a proud feminist and, for me, feminism has to be intersectional, recognising that all women, including trans women, deserve the same
rights, safety and respect,” she said. “Anything less isn’t true feminism in my opinion.” Meadows is frustrated with the idea that trans rights impinge on women’s rights. “It’s not true,” she said. “I think
older feminists holding on to that belief are stuck in a version of
feminism that doesn’t work any more and it needs to evolve.”
On 20/04/2025 10:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 16:31:08 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 03:01, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:23, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:16, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did >>>>>>> not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/ >>>>>>> she did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be >>>>>> one of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and >>>>>> if so whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I >>>>>>> will not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based >>>>>> on whether I wanted to divulge the information.
What "information"?
Whether I was born male.
The whole point is that is a entirely makey-uppy concept.
There's nothing makey-uppy about it. It's a simple question. No
different from whether you have always had flat feet.
Other than in a medical context, why would it be any of someone else's
business?
The idea that there is something so remarkable (abnormal) about being
normal is the made-up concept.
The obvious reason for asking it is one that you would surely approve of. To >> identify people who were *not* born as men when it is necessary or
proportionate to do so.
Feel free to add "law enforcement" to ""medical context" if it is helpful.
And pace the oft-voiced opposition to having to give details of one's
medical problem to a GP's receptionist, there would be no problem in
either case - as long as the information is relevant.
On being stopped by the police for speeding, it obviously would not be relevant (as an example)
I would not be agreeing to some underlying ideology by answering.
If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking >>>>>> ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
No. I do not carry any means of starting a fire.
So, what ideology are you supposedly subscribing to by saying that?
None, other than a belief in being truthful.
Precisely. Answering a simple question the implications of which you do not >> object to is not supporting any particular ideology.
But I DO object to being expected to provide answers to such questions
to persons not legally or professionally entitled to demand such answers.
Is there a reason why I or anyone else shouldn't?
On 20/04/2025 06:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:00:21 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:05:44 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question >>>>>>>>> by not providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this >>>>>>>>> bollocks" - which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it >>>>>>>>> *appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not >>>>>>>>> recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your >>>>>>>> posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day
without using any pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns >>>>>>> that his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to >>>>>>> loss of job or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred >>>>>>> in the recent past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I >>>>>>> don't think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me.
I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over
such things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I
have no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is
shit.)
Only one of those is part of an honours system.
The other is part of an aristocracy system.
And my answer reflected the distinction.
Your go.
Why did you emphasise the word "an"?
Did I ?
Didn't you write (verbatim):
QUOTE:
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
ENDQUOTE ...?
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 15:49:49 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 22:46:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and
surprising definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this
offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
If surgeons can provide biological females with a functional penis
capable of involuntary (on the part of the victim) penetration, then I >>>> have learnt a new fact, as perhaps have several of us. Of course it is >>>> all more credible if the victim is unconscious, which is not a rare
situation during rape. Thank you. Do you have any cases?
Sorry, what is it you are doubting here? The existence of phalloplasty?
No, its effectiveness.
It certainly can result in an organ which can be used for penetration.
I am rather surprised that you are not aware of this. If you are still doubtful then I would imagine you would have easier access to the
relevant medical journals than I would.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 10:59:36 +0100, The Todal wrote:
On 19/04/2025 22:34, Roger Hayter wrote:women-trans-rights-f7kwzv2tt
On 19 Apr 2025 at 21:31:31 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman >>>>>> is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is >>>>>>>>> put about by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister >>>>>>>>> attempt to stop trans people even being allowed to talk in public >>>>>>>>> about issues that affect them.Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis- >>>>>>>> Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it
until they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the
Equality Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy
parliamentary timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he >>>>>>> doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was >>>>> asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a
cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a
cervix is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed >>>> for medical reasons.
Uncontroversially, a trans man has been a woman, and whether he is now
depends on your definition of "woman". And the second statement has a
severe logic failure; having a cervix is proof of womanhood (at least
at some time), but is simply logically non-equivalent to the statment:
not cervix implies not womanhood. The enemy may have claimed the second
statement, but you didn't say so.
Anyone attempting to produce a reliable definition of "what is a woman"
would have to do rather better than "was probably born with a cervix".
And would have to do considerably better than "Adult Human Female!".
These witless campaigners who demand that Starmer should state
precisely what a woman is, merely reveal their own shallow thinking.
JK Rowling the writer of fiction once said that people who menstruate
should properly be called women. Implying that women who are unable
to menstruate do not deserve to be called women.
Again, logic failure. Did she say people who don't menstruate are not
women? If so, I agree with your criticism. But it is not entailed by
saying the converse.
Actually what happened was that she complained about a bulletin or
guidance note which was directed at "people who menstruate". She
facetiously said `'I’m sure there used to be a word for those people.
Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”
Implicitly she was saying that even if the advice was not aimed at
people who don't menstruate (children, post-menopausal women, women who
have had surgery or who have dysfunctional hormones) the advice should
have been addressed to "women".
That's the mindless sorting-hat mentality of a mediocre children's
author.
I suppose she was making the point that a trans man, who continues to
menstruate, has no right to think of himself as male and should be
forced back into the role of being a woman.
Whatever answer he gives will always be seen as evasive or ignorant byShe should creep into her sorting hat and think hard about all the
harm she has done.
Here's mediocre children's author JK Rowling in her self-appointed >>>>>> role as standard bearer for women.
'Many women are waiting to hear the Prime Minister's views on the
Supreme Court ruling. After all, he's the man who decreed: 'A woman >>>>>> is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women,
and that is not just my view, that is actually the law',' she wrote. >>>>>>
unquote
What are your qualifications as a literary critic?i
A degree in English Literature from a reputable university.
For some purposes, Starmer's statement is still legally true, of
course. The UKSC hasn't repealed the Gender Recognition Act.
You must have been reading a version of the judgment that someone hasBut it remains the case that trans women are women, and that remains >>>>>> the law, and unfortunately Rowling does not have the skill-set to
understand the law. If Starmer offers to give lessons to Rowling on >>>>>> this topic, I doubt if she will be receptive.
Dear me... the court said that the losers shouldn't feel "sore".
created on the internet.
I think Starmer should have answered the question in the manner of the
famous panellist on the famous 1950s Home Service programme and said:
"It depends what you mean by a woman." It is clearly context dependent.
the anti-trans lobby. Even now, no doubt.
I think the fact of the matter is that the anti-trans people believe
that the wise judges of the Supreme Court have issued blanket permission
to the nation to say that trans women are men in drag, or mentally ill
people, or predatory perverts.
And maybe some people genuinely believe that, but the kindest thing
would be to keep their opinions to themselves.
Interesting piece in the Times today. Proving that the Scottish ladies
do not actually represent all, or even necessarily a majority, of women.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/uk-supreme-court-decision-
quotes
Younger people are more likely than their parents to disagree with the
Supreme Court decision last week that only biological women are women
under UK law
Wright, 23, from London, has been avoiding the argument she anticipates
will eventually erupt when her family sit down for Easter lunch this
weekend. “My mum is an old-school feminist,” she said. “I get she’s from
the generation where women really had to fight for equality but I just
don’t think trans people having rights takes away from my rights as a
cis woman. It’s infuriating having to hear their recycled arguments
about loos and pronouns.”
According to a YouGov survey conducted last year, 61 per cent of 18 to
24-year-olds think transgender people should be able to identify as
being of a different gender to the one recorded at birth, compared to
only 36 per cent of those aged 65 and older and 47 per cent of those
aged 50 to 64.
Melissa Meadows, 31, is a mental health nursing student from Scotland.
“I’m a proud feminist and, for me, feminism has to be intersectional,
recognising that all women, including trans women, deserve the same
rights, safety and respect,” she said. “Anything less isn’t true
feminism in my opinion.” Meadows is frustrated with the idea that trans >> rights impinge on women’s rights. “It’s not true,” she said. “I think
older feminists holding on to that belief are stuck in a version of
feminism that doesn’t work any more and it needs to evolve.”
How about "possesses XX Chromosomes" ?
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 10:39:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 20/04/2025 06:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:00:21 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:05:44 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question >>>>>>>>>> by not providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this >>>>>>>>>> bollocks" - which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it >>>>>>>>>> *appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not >>>>>>>>>> recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your >>>>>>>>> posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day
without using any pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns >>>>>>>> that his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to >>>>>>>> loss of job or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred >>>>>>>> in the recent past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I >>>>>>>> don't think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me. >>>>>>> I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over
such things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I >>>>>>> have no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is >>>>>>> shit.)
Only one of those is part of an honours system.
The other is part of an aristocracy system.
And my answer reflected the distinction.
Your go.
Why did you emphasise the word "an"?
Did I ?
Didn't you write (verbatim):
QUOTE:
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have no
problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
ENDQUOTE ...?
Yes. But *you* added that emphasis which was not present in what I wrote.
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
gender.
What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal
1 in 100 people.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
On 20 Apr 2025 at 18:50:04 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 15:49:49 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:No, its effectiveness.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 22:46:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and
surprising definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this
offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
If surgeons can provide biological females with a functional penis
capable of involuntary (on the part of the victim) penetration, then I >>>>> have learnt a new fact, as perhaps have several of us. Of course it is >>>>> all more credible if the victim is unconscious, which is not a rare
situation during rape. Thank you. Do you have any cases?
Sorry, what is it you are doubting here? The existence of phalloplasty? >>>
It certainly can result in an organ which can be used for penetration.
I am rather surprised that you are not aware of this. If you are still
doubtful then I would imagine you would have easier access to the
relevant medical journals than I would.
But involuntary penetration? Though I did, as I said, forget about unconscious victims.
On 20 Apr 2025 at 22:54:24 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 18:50:04 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 15:49:49 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:No, its effectiveness.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 22:46:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and >>>>>>>>>> surprising definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this
offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3). >>>>>>>>
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
If surgeons can provide biological females with a functional penis >>>>>>> capable of involuntary (on the part of the victim) penetration, then I >>>>>>> have learnt a new fact, as perhaps have several of us. Of course it is >>>>>>> all more credible if the victim is unconscious, which is not a rare >>>>>>> situation during rape. Thank you. Do you have any cases?
Sorry, what is it you are doubting here? The existence of phalloplasty? >>>>>
It certainly can result in an organ which can be used for penetration. >>>> I am rather surprised that you are not aware of this. If you are still >>>> doubtful then I would imagine you would have easier access to the
relevant medical journals than I would.
But involuntary penetration? Though I did, as I said, forget about
unconscious victims.
I must confess to being entirely unfamiliar with involuntarily
penetrating people so I don't know what you're getting at.
I would've thought that, if anything, it involves general physical
prowess in subduing the victim rather than any particular, er,
hardiness of the penis!
But regardless, my point was not that rape committed by "biological
females" using a surgically-constructed penis is common, or indeed
has ever occurred, simply that it is legally-speaking possible.
I think it would have to be established in court that a surgically-constructed analogue of a penis *was* a penis for the
purpose of the law. It is by no means obviously so.
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 18:50:04 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 15:49:49 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:No, its effectiveness.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 22:46:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and
surprising definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this
offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3). >>>>>>>
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
If surgeons can provide biological females with a functional penis >>>>>> capable of involuntary (on the part of the victim) penetration, then I >>>>>> have learnt a new fact, as perhaps have several of us. Of course it is >>>>>> all more credible if the victim is unconscious, which is not a rare >>>>>> situation during rape. Thank you. Do you have any cases?
Sorry, what is it you are doubting here? The existence of phalloplasty? >>>>
It certainly can result in an organ which can be used for penetration.
I am rather surprised that you are not aware of this. If you are still
doubtful then I would imagine you would have easier access to the
relevant medical journals than I would.
But involuntary penetration? Though I did, as I said, forget about
unconscious victims.
I must confess to being entirely unfamiliar with involuntarily
penetrating people so I don't know what you're getting at.
I would've thought that, if anything, it involves general physical
prowess in subduing the victim rather than any particular, er,
hardiness of the penis!
But regardless, my point was not that rape committed by "biological
females" using a surgically-constructed penis is common, or indeed
has ever occurred, simply that it is legally-speaking possible.
On 20/04/2025 07:13, Fredxx wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from
sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a
nominal 1 in 100 people.
On what basis is that "nominal" 1% statement made?
On any reliable statistical data at all?
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
Often reported (or hinted at) in the days of the Warsaw Pact, as I recall.
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal
1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth (sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while
approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 22:54:24 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 18:50:04 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 15:49:49 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:No, its effectiveness.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 22:46:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 19/04/2025 14:43, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-19, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:47, JNugent wrote:
Why "unable"? Females can be guilty of rape.
Biological females can not be guilty of rape.
That is incorrect, unless you are using a fairly unique and >>>>>>>>>>> surprising definition of "biological female".
I accept the correction to " a woman can only commit this >>>>>>>>>> offence as an accomplice."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-7-key-legislation-and-offences
That isn't what I meant. See the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s79(3). >>>>>>>>>
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/79
If surgeons can provide biological females with a functional penis >>>>>>>> capable of involuntary (on the part of the victim) penetration, then I >>>>>>>> have learnt a new fact, as perhaps have several of us. Of course it is >>>>>>>> all more credible if the victim is unconscious, which is not a rare >>>>>>>> situation during rape. Thank you. Do you have any cases?
Sorry, what is it you are doubting here? The existence of phalloplasty? >>>>>>
It certainly can result in an organ which can be used for penetration. >>>>> I am rather surprised that you are not aware of this. If you are still >>>>> doubtful then I would imagine you would have easier access to the
relevant medical journals than I would.
But involuntary penetration? Though I did, as I said, forget about
unconscious victims.
I must confess to being entirely unfamiliar with involuntarily
penetrating people so I don't know what you're getting at.
I would've thought that, if anything, it involves general physical
prowess in subduing the victim rather than any particular, er,
hardiness of the penis!
But regardless, my point was not that rape committed by "biological
females" using a surgically-constructed penis is common, or indeed
has ever occurred, simply that it is legally-speaking possible.
I think it would have to be established in court that a
surgically-constructed analogue of a penis *was* a penis for the
purpose of the law. It is by no means obviously so.
Have you forgotten that the law we are discussing here is a statute that
says explicitly "references to a part of the body include references to
a part surgically constructed"?
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 13:13:01 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
gender.
Sex in homo sapiens is determined by the presence or absence of the SR-Y protein in a newly fertilised embryo. SR-Y is usually carried on the Y chromosome, hence the popular belief that XX = female and XY = male.
However, while true most of the time, there are cases where the Y chromosome does not carry an SR-Y protein (or, more commonly, carries a partly or fully inert SR-Y protein), leading to the condition commonly referred to as "XY female", or, in other cases, various developmental sexual disorders (DSDs). There can, indeed, be cases where SR-Y is carried on an X chromosome, potentially leading to an XX male.
What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal
1 in 100 people.
There are no human (or, indeed, mammal) hermaphrodites. There are some animals (snails, for example) which are simultaneously male and female. But every mammal, including humans, produces either eggs (female) or sperm (male), or, in some cases, neither. Someone who produces neither eggs nor sperm is not a hermaphrodite, they are someone with a severe DSD.
DSDs are not particularly uncommon - they affect, as you say, maybe around
1% of the population. But the majority of DSDs are not visible, and in most cases do not affect a person's ability to produce either eggs or sperm (although it is quite likely that the eggs or sperm they produce will be non-viable, rendering them infertile). The number of people with a sufficiently severe DSD to be unable to produce either eggs or sperm at all is considerably lower.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
They're not banned because the're XY (although some people with a simplistic view of biology think they ought to be). They're generally banned because their bodies produce excessive amounts of testosterone, which is a known side-effect of many female DSDs. Some might argue that that's unfair, given that they didn't choose to be born that way.
On 20 Apr 2025 at 17:28:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 10:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 16:31:08 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 03:01, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:23, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:16, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that I did >>>>>>>> not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than he/ >>>>>>>> she did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be >>>>>>> one of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and >>>>>>> if so whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I >>>>>>>> will not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely based >>>>>>> on whether I wanted to divulge the information.
What "information"?
Whether I was born male.
The whole point is that is a entirely makey-uppy concept.
There's nothing makey-uppy about it. It's a simple question. No
different from whether you have always had flat feet.
Other than in a medical context, why would it be any of someone else's >>>> business?
The idea that there is something so remarkable (abnormal) about being
normal is the made-up concept.
The obvious reason for asking it is one that you would surely approve of. To
identify people who were *not* born as men when it is necessary or
proportionate to do so.
Feel free to add "law enforcement" to ""medical context" if it is helpful. >>
And pace the oft-voiced opposition to having to give details of one's
medical problem to a GP's receptionist, there would be no problem in
either case - as long as the information is relevant.
On being stopped by the police for speeding, it obviously would not be
relevant (as an example)
I would not be agreeing to some underlying ideology by answering. >>>>>>> If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to 'smoking >>>>>>> ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
No. I do not carry any means of starting a fire.
So, what ideology are you supposedly subscribing to by saying that?
None, other than a belief in being truthful.
Precisely. Answering a simple question the implications of which you do not >>> object to is not supporting any particular ideology.
But I DO object to being expected to provide answers to such questions
to persons not legally or professionally entitled to demand such answers.
Is there a reason why I or anyone else shouldn't?
Have you ever been asked to? I haven't.
I think it would have to be established in court that a surgically-constructed
analogue of a penis *was* a penis for the purpose of the law. It is by no means obviously so. Fortunately being *born* a woman makes the individual much
less likely to commit this, or any, violent act.
Whether this is intrinsic, hormonal (in which case trans men may differ), socialised, or merely a result of being generally weaker than men I don't know. For a cynical view see "The Power" by Naomi Alderman.
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 10:39:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 20/04/2025 06:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:00:21 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:05:44 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the question >>>>>>>>>> by not providing an option to say "I do not believe in all this >>>>>>>>>> bollocks" - which "prefer not to say" doesn't allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it >>>>>>>>>> *appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not >>>>>>>>>> recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in your >>>>>>>>> posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day
without using any pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the pronouns >>>>>>>> that his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps leading to >>>>>>>> loss of job or even arrest (both of which appear to have occurred >>>>>>>> in the recent past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which I >>>>>>>> don't think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me. >>>>>>> I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over
such things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I >>>>>>> have no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is >>>>>>> shit.)
Only one of those is part of an honours system.
The other is part of an aristocracy system.
And my answer reflected the distinction.
Your go.
Why did you emphasise the word "an"?
Did I ?
Didn't you write (verbatim):
QUOTE:
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have no
problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
ENDQUOTE ...?
Yes. But *you* added that emphasis which was not present in what I wrote.
On 2025-04-20, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 10:39:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 20/04/2025 06:04, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:00:21 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:45, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 16:05:44 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 18/04/2025 11:46, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:20:43 +0100, Max Demian wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:57, GB wrote:
On 17/04/2025 11:12, Jethro_uk wrote:
Plenty of online forms make it impossible to evade the
question by not providing an option to say "I do not believe >>>>>>>>>>> in all this bollocks" - which "prefer not to say" doesn't >>>>>>>>>>> allow for.
I strongly resent being gerrymandered into a position where it >>>>>>>>>>> *appears* I have tacitly agreed to a philosophy that I do not >>>>>>>>>>> recognise.
You are "against pronouns", yet virtually every sentence in >>>>>>>>>> your posts contains pronouns. I challenge you to post for a day >>>>>>>>>> without using any pronouns!
Clearly the pp is objecting to the requirement to use the
pronouns that his interlocutor specifies, with refusal perhaps >>>>>>>>> leading to loss of job or even arrest (both of which appear to >>>>>>>>> have occurred in the recent past).
Like someone insisting on being addressed a "His Majesty" (which >>>>>>>>> I don't think our King can do).
If I were ever to meet the King, he'd be plain Mr. Windsor to me. >>>>>>>> I have a vague memory that he's known to be quite unstuffy over >>>>>>>> such things.
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I >>>>>>>> have no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is >>>>>>>> shit.)
Only one of those is part of an honours system.
The other is part of an aristocracy system.
And my answer reflected the distinction.
Your go.
Why did you emphasise the word "an"?
Did I ?
Didn't you write (verbatim):
QUOTE:
(I'd be less fastidious over calling someone "Sir firstname" - I have
no problem with *an* honours system. Just the current one is shit.)
ENDQUOTE ...?
Yes. But *you* added that emphasis which was not present in what I
wrote.
Er, no he didn't. In Message-ID: <vttvka$vrjm$1@dont-email.me> dated
Friday at 16:46 UTC someone claiming to be you wrote the words quoted
above, including the emphasis on "an".
http://al.howardknight.net/?ID=174518542000
This is an utterly weird thread - the reason you emphasised "an"
is entirely obvious and doesn't represent any sort of "gotcha". JNugent failed to understand your plain meaning. And apparently you've forgotten
what you wrote!
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:04:38 BST, Pamela wrote:
On 04:21 20 Apr 2025, RJH said:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 17:09:42 BST, Pamela wrote:
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic masculinity
by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to hatefully
bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms, sports, prisons, >>>> schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand and, in the process, >>>> revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
trangressors any but the mininum rights.
Where do you get this information? If anything, you sound to be the
hate-filled one.
I wonder if you read the term "bully" in a different way than I used it?
No, I don't think so - I took it as cajoled etc.
I
did not mean the trans people I refer to physically pushed or forced their >> way into toilets etc etc, as you might gather from my comment that they
overplayed their hand.
Their insistence of taking part in women's sports, having NHS health
notices modified, serving time in a women's prison, and so on became
almost pathological.
'Their'?! On the occasions that those sorts of things happen, I'd suggest that
any evidence of harm is rare to the point of insignificance in real life. That's partly because of context, and partly because anybody happening to notice doesn't care. It seems to me that significance gained after the act is pure media hype.
I'll ask again - where's your evidence of harm?
Have you forgotten that the law we are discussing here is a statute that
says explicitly "references to a part of the body include references to
a part surgically constructed"?
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:04:38 BST, Pamela wrote:
On 04:21 20 Apr 2025, RJH said:
On 19 Apr 2025 at 17:09:42 BST, Pamela wrote:
For years many in the trans community vented their toxic
masculinity by misusing rights they assumed had been granted to
hatefully bully their way into women's toilets, changing rooms,
sports, prisons, schools, the NHS, etc. They overplayed their hand
and, in the process, revealed what a hate-filled bunch they are.
In my humble opinion it would be foolhardy to now permit these
transgressors any but the minimum rights.
Where do you get this information? If anything, you sound to be the
hate-filled one.
I wonder if you read the term "bully" in a different way than I used
it?
No, I don't think so - I took it as cajoled etc.
I did not mean the trans people I refer to physically pushed or
forced their way into toilets etc etc, as you might gather from my
comment that they overplayed their hand.
Their insistence of taking part in women's sports, having NHS health
notices modified, serving time in a women's prison, and so on became
almost pathological.
'Their'?!
On the occasions that those sorts of things happen, I'd suggest that
any evidence of harm is rare to the point of insignificance in real
life. That's partly because of context, and partly because anybody
happening to notice doesn't care. It seems to me that significance
gained after the act is pure media hype.
I'll ask again - where's your evidence of harm?
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal >>> 1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by
examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome
arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth
(sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly
uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than
intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while
approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that possesses both male
and female reproductive organs", so don't understand why you believe there are no known
"no known human hermaphrodites" though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range of 1:4,500-1:2,000 (0.02%-0.05%)"
On 2025-04-20, kat <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 18/04/2025 18:32, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:We do. And they decided just what a woman is the other day. Fortunately.
On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 13:23:41 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 19:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 15:47:11 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
You can bank on the fact that it is ok to discriminate Italians. >>>>>>>Only if it is proportionate to do so for a legitimate reason.
Nationality is includeded under race.
Who says? That's ridiculous.
The Equality Act 2010, which says:
9(1) Race includes-
(a) colour;
(b) nationality;
(c) ethnic or national origins.
None of which can be objectively determined.
Fortunately our justice system has invented these things called "judges". >>
No they didn't. Have you not been paying attention to this thread?
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at the time) husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want
the rest.
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the
company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The
answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at the time) husband
would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for
single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want
the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going
to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact
that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
On 20 Apr 2025 at 11:09:59 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
More to the point, I would suggest that zero women have been assaulted
in toilets or changing rooms by men who are dressed as women. Thats
zero, nada, zilch.
I have no information about how common it is, but 30 seconds of googling falsifies your statement.
https://le.utah.gov/interim/2024/pdf/00000577.pdf
For instance.
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the company joined
the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The answer was I wouldn't need one
as my ( non existent at the time) husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a husband provides
the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for single sex
spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going to pay to men
(as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that single women could retire,
and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact that women have
a longer life expectancy than men.
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the
company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The
answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at the time)
husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for
single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and
want the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going
to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact
that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 16:21:05 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-20, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Any honest person being asked to produce a definition of a woman
should ask whether they are being required to produce a political
view of how the word should be used (and saying how a word should be
used is futile except as a populist slogan, on either side), or
whether they being asked who should be regarded as a woman for a
particular purpose, or lastly whether they are being asked for a
dictionary definition of the word woman. In the last case the only
possible answer is that it is word used with different meanings in
different contexts by different people so it has several dictionary
definitions; like many words.
If we could ever get away from populist sloganising on both sides,
which seems unlikely, the correct political answer to the question is
that it depends on the purpose for which it is necessary to decide who >>>> is a woman. Anyone who says this is likely to be reviled by all sides.
No - only the anti-trans side will revile that answer. Indeed it's
the one I just gave earlier today, and 13 years ago also (when
I was reviled for it by the anti-trans people).
I suspect there is a strand of extreme trans ideology which will
insist that a trans woman is a woman for all purposes, and any
dilution of that principle is a hate crime. You are fortunate if you
have not come across this view.
You suspect it, but the fact that I haven't encountered it doesn't give
your suspicions pause?
I would agree that a lot of people would say "trans women are women" is
the default starting point
On 4/20/25 23:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think it would have to be established in court that a surgically-constructed
analogue of a penis *was* a penis for the purpose of the law. It is by no
means obviously so. Fortunately being *born* a woman makes the individual much
less likely to commit this, or any, violent act.
Whether this is intrinsic, hormonal (in which case trans men may differ),
socialised, or merely a result of being generally weaker than men I don't
know. For a cynical view see "The Power" by Naomi Alderman.
I remember Jordan Peterson once claiming the aggressiveness differences between men and women were much less than people normally expect. He
said something like; if you compare a random man with a random woman,
the more aggressive person will only be the man about 60% of the time.
On 20/04/2025 08:14, kat wrote:
On 19/04/2025 21:31, The Todal wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that >>>>>>>> affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and "Cis- Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it until they
get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the Equality Act.
Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy parliamentary timetable >>>>>>> for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that he doesn't
know what a woman is and might be in need of further clarification. >>>>>>
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a woman is". >>>>> Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in the Daily Mail >>>>> perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he was asked
reporters about what a woman is and whether only women have a cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
"99.9% of women do not have a penis".
I don't think he was referring to transmen somehow.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a cervix is
not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be removed for medical >>> reasons.
I know that was not written by the immediate PP, but surely that should have been:
"And [not] having a cervix is not proof of [non-]womanhood, given that a cervix
might be removed for medical reasons"?
In the absence of such an amendment, it made little sense.
Of course, three negatives acting against each other is clumsy, but that was the
only way to make the point without completely re-wording the sentence.
Lammy reckons men can "grow a cervix".
Perhaps there has been a case from 1879 reported in the Gunness Book of records
or something?
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal >>> 1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by
examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome
arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth
(sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly
uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than
intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while
approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that
possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't understand
why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites"
though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range
of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:vu578s$216d8$1@dont-email.me...
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the company joined
the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The answer was I wouldn't need one
as my ( non existent at the time) husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a husband provides
the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for single sex
spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going to pay to men
(as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that single women could retire,
and receive their state pension at 60,
Married women as well of course. But not to retire from housework, cooking, cleanng etc
All of which was always unpaid of course.
So that in the case of married women at least, were they to be compensated for half of the housework they did over the course of their married leives, presumably
paid at minimum wage levels who do you imagine might come out on top ?
On 20/04/2025 22:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2025 13:13:01 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
They're not banned because the're XY (although some people with a simplistic >> view of biology think they ought to be). They're generally banned because
their bodies produce excessive amounts of testosterone, which is a known
side-effect of many female DSDs. Some might argue that that's unfair, given >> that they didn't choose to be born that way.
While I appreciate your post is well meant:
1) I don't believe a chromosomal test is used to define gender on a
birth certificate.
2) The definition of a hermaphrodite was applied to humans with both
sets of male and female organs but the term has been largely replaced by >"intersex".
3) Female athletes have been banned and medals stripped from having XY >chromosomes.
4) More recently Females athletes with XX and XY chromosomes are tested
for testosterone levels and must be below a certain threshold to compete.
On 20/04/2025 13:11, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 17:28:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 10:39, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 16:31:08 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 03:01, GB wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:23, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:16, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 22:44, JNugent wrote:
My answer to the question as to whether I was "cis" would that >>>>>>>>> I did
not know what the interlocutor was talking about, any more than >>>>>>>>> he/
she did.
If someone asked me whether I am cis, my initial response would be >>>>>>>> one of utter confusion. I'd wonder whether they had said "Sis", and >>>>>>>> if so whose sister?
There are some obsessions of third parties with an agenda which I >>>>>>>>> will not validate and with which I will not deal.
Once I'd understood the question, I'd answer it, or not, purely >>>>>>>> based
on whether I wanted to divulge the information.
What "information"?
Whether I was born male.
The whole point is that is a entirely makey-uppy concept.
There's nothing makey-uppy about it. It's a simple question. No
different from whether you have always had flat feet.
Other than in a medical context, why would it be any of someone else's >>>>> business?
The idea that there is something so remarkable (abnormal) about being >>>>> normal is the made-up concept.
The obvious reason for asking it is one that you would surely
approve of. To
identify people who were *not* born as men when it is necessary or
proportionate to do so.
Feel free to add "law enforcement" to ""medical context" if it is
helpful.
And pace the oft-voiced opposition to having to give details of one's
medical problem to a GP's receptionist, there would be no problem in
either case - as long as the information is relevant.
On being stopped by the police for speeding, it obviously would not be
relevant (as an example)
I would not be agreeing to some underlying ideology by answering. >>>>>>>> If someone asks you for a light, are you somehow agreeing to
'smoking
ideology' by saying you don't have a match?
No. I do not carry any means of starting a fire.
So, what ideology are you supposedly subscribing to by saying that?
None, other than a belief in being truthful.
Precisely. Answering a simple question the implications of which you
do not
object to is not supporting any particular ideology.
But I DO object to being expected to provide answers to such questions
to persons not legally or professionally entitled to demand such
answers.
Is there a reason why I or anyone else shouldn't?
Have you ever been asked to? I haven't.
Neither have I. And I don't expect it's yet happened to many people.
But it was still raised as a question here with the apparent implication
that the word and the concept should be accepted by everyone without
demur and that failure to do that is some sort of hatred.
On 21 Apr 2025 at 00:37:59 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityIs gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal >>>> 1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by
examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome
arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth >>> (sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly
uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than
intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while
approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that
possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't understand
why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites"
though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range
of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
Your definition is poorly worded. An hermaphrodite has to possess *effective* reproductive organs of both sexes, which means it has to produce both male and
female reproductive cells (gametes) which in mammals at least would mean having both male and female gonads (testes and ovaries) as well as the means to deliver said gametes. This does not happen in mammals.
The colloquial use of hermaphrodite for ambiguous genitalia is just plain wrong, and obsolete even in the wrong colloquial sense.
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message news:vu3ce1$aisg$1@dont-email.me...
'Their'?! On the occasions that those sorts of things happen, I'd
suggest that any evidence of harm is rare to the point of
insignificance in real life. That's partly because of context, and
partly because anybody happening to notice doesn't care. It seems to
me that significance gained after the act is pure media hype.
I'll ask again - where's your evidence of harm?
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
On 21/04/2025 11:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 00:37:59 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityIs gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal >>>>> 1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by >>>> examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome
arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth >>>> (sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly >>>> uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than >>>> intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong. >>>>
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were >>>>> banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while
approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that
possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't understand >>> why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites"
though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range
of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
Your definition is poorly worded. An hermaphrodite has to possess *effective*
reproductive organs of both sexes, which means it has to produce both male and
female reproductive cells (gametes) which in mammals at least would mean
having both male and female gonads (testes and ovaries) as well as the means >> to deliver said gametes. This does not happen in mammals.
The colloquial use of hermaphrodite for ambiguous genitalia is just plain
wrong, and obsolete even in the wrong colloquial sense.
We can either take your definition or a dictionary definition. An
example is here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hermaphrodite
which limits the definition to the mere possession of both male and
female reproductive organs.
Perhaps you're getting confused with parthenogenesis?
It makes no mention of delivery both sex's gametes. If you can find a UK British dictionary that promotes your belief do fee free to provide a link.
An indication of self fertilisation in a human hermaphrodite is possible:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987710001957
And some claimed examples of self-fertilisation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message news:vu3ce1$aisg$1@dont-email.me...
'Their'?! On the occasions that those sorts of things happen, I'd
suggest that any evidence of harm is rare to the point of
insignificance in real life. That's partly because of context, and
partly because anybody happening to notice doesn't care. It seems to
me that significance gained after the act is pure media hype.
I'll ask again - where's your evidence of harm?
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false...
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:58:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message news:vu3ce1$aisg$1@dont-email.me...
'Their'?! On the occasions that those sorts of things happen, I'd
suggest that any evidence of harm is rare to the point of
insignificance in real life. That's partly because of context, and
partly because anybody happening to notice doesn't care. It seems to
me that significance gained after the act is pure media hype.
I'll ask again - where's your evidence of harm?
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false...
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
Your statement is not a reflection of what Dhejne said. She said one particular anti-trans implication, trans women being a rape risk, was
not one of the studies findings. She did not withdraw the finding that transwomen had a male pattern of criminality.
Rape risk was simply not one of the end points studied. And observers
of the study are *still* despite her denial that this was a formal
finding, entitled to suspect that transwomen with a male pattern of criminality may be as much of a rape risk as men living as men. This
has not been formally tested, but is certainly a possible implication
of a male pattern of criminality.
On 21/04/2025 12:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are
going to pay to men
(as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that single
women could retire,
and receive their state pension at 60,
Married women as well of course. But not to retire from housework,
cooking,
cleanng etc
All of which was always unpaid of course.
So that in the case of married women at least, were they to be
compensated
for half of the housework they did over the course of their married
leives, presumably
paid at minimum wage levels who do you imagine might come out on top ?
There used to be, maybe still is, a calculation ( made initially to
persuade men to take life insurance on their wives) of how much it would
cost to hire people to do all the various jobs a wife did for free.
It was far above the average wage.
On 21 Apr 2025 at 11:39:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the
company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The
answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at the time) husband >>> would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for
single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want >>> the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going
to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that
single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact
that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
It actually made sense for men when;
a. Most women only had a pension due to their husband's contributions;
b. Most men were a few years older than their wives;
c. Men needed someone to feed, entertain and look after them and their houses once they retired.
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years required in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically designed for men.
On 21/04/2025 11:39, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in
the company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women
couldn't. The answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at
the time) husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight
for single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and
want the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are
going to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major
injustice that single women could retire, and receive their state
pension at 60, whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the
long known fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
I think there are still legitimate grievances about equal pay, with
women often being paid less than men for the same job of work.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody and
anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather make
that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade swooped in and
made them their own.
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 11:39:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the >>>> company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The >>>> answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at the time) husband >>>> would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for >>>> single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want >>>> the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going
to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that >>> single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact
that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
It actually made sense for men when;
a. Most women only had a pension due to their husband's contributions;
b. Most men were a few years older than their wives;
c. Men needed someone to feed, entertain and look after them and their houses
once they retired.
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years required >> in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was
quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically
designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually existed.
But there have been a lot of social and economic changes since then.
On 21/04/2025 11:39, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in
the company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women
couldn't. The answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at
the time) husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight
for single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and
want the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are
going to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major
injustice that single women could retire, and receive their state
pension at 60, whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the
long known fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
I think there are still legitimate grievances about equal pay, with
women often being paid less than men for the same job of work.
And I am
sure that in some businesses, women do not rise to partnership level as
often as they ought to, because there is an unspoken assumption that
they don't have the same commitment and are likely to go on maternity
leave (even if they have no interest in having children).
But I think the presence of trans women is unlikely to harm the
interests of women and may advance those interests.
On 21/04/2025 12:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vu578s$216d8$1@dont-email.me...
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the company
joined
the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The answer was I wouldn't need
one
as my ( non existent at the time) husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a husband provides
the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for single sex
spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going to pay to men
(as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that single women could retire,
and receive their state pension at 60,
Married women as well of course. But not to retire from housework, cooking, >> cleanng etc
All of which was always unpaid of course.
So that in the case of married women at least, were they to be compensated >> for half of the housework they did over the course of their married leives, presumably
paid at minimum wage levels who do you imagine might come out on top ?
There used to be, maybe still is, a calculation ( made initially to persuade men to
take life insurance on their wives) of how much it would cost to hire people to do all
the various jobs a wife did for free.
It was far above the average wage.
--
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:58:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message news:vu3ce1$aisg$1@dont-email.me...
'Their'?! On the occasions that those sorts of things happen, I'd
suggest that any evidence of harm is rare to the point of
insignificance in real life. That's partly because of context, and
partly because anybody happening to notice doesn't care. It seems to
me that significance gained after the act is pure media hype.
I'll ask again - where's your evidence of harm?
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false...
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
Your statement is not a reflection of what Dhejne said. She said one particular anti-trans implication, trans women being a rape risk, was not one of the studies findings. She did not withdraw the finding that transwomen had a male pattern of criminality. Rape risk was simply not one of the end points studied. And observers of the study are *still* despite her denial that this was a formal finding, entitled to suspect that transwomen with a male pattern of criminality may be as much of a rape risk as men living as men. This has not been formally tested, but is certainly a possible implication of a male pattern of criminality.
On 20/04/2025 17:19, JNugent wrote:
On 20/04/2025 08:14, kat wrote:
On 19/04/2025 21:31, The Todal wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is >>>>>>>>> put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt >>>>>>>>> to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues >>>>>>>>> that affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and
"Cis- Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it
until they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the
Equality Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy
parliamentary timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that
he doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further
clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a
woman is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in >>>>>> the Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he
was asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women
have a cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
"99.9% of women do not have a penis".
I don't think he was referring to transmen somehow.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a
cervix is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be
removed for medical reasons.
I know that was not written by the immediate PP, but surely that
should have been:
"And [not] having a cervix is not proof of [non-]womanhood, given that
a cervix might be removed for medical reasons"?
In the absence of such an amendment, it made little sense.
Of course, three negatives acting against each other is clumsy, but
that was the only way to make the point without completely re-wording
the sentence.
There is rather more to being a biological woman than having a cervix, obviously, and a female's body ungoes other changes too, as the years
pass. I recall one time women were referred tp as "bleeders".
Something we only do a part of our lives.
Does the removal of testicles due to cancer mean a man is no longer a man?
Lammy reckons men can "grow a cervix".
Perhaps there has been a case from 1879 reported in the Gunness Book
of records or something?
Somehow I doubt it.
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:44:22 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 11:39:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the >>>>> company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The >>>>> answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at the time) husband >>>>> would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for >>>>> single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want >>>>> the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going >>>> to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that >>>> single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact >>>> that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
It actually made sense for men when;
a. Most women only had a pension due to their husband's contributions;
b. Most men were a few years older than their wives;
c. Men needed someone to feed, entertain and look after them and their houses
once they retired.
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was >>> quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically
designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually
existed.
But there have been a lot of social and economic changes since then.
Absolutely agree. I'm just saying that the superficial view that the old system was weighted in favour of women isn't looking at the whole picture.
And let's not forget that "the same job of work" has not proven to be a necessity in
actual cases. Think of the famous Dagenham Ford dispute, where the comparison was
between men working on the assembly line and women working in the production of
upholstery.
Quick question: Have you ever been present at a car assembly line while it was
operating?
*I* have (sent there to effect some electrical repairs). It was hell on stilts.
Mainly because of the deafening noise.
On 21 Apr 2025 at 08:52:48 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/25 23:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think it would have to be established in court that a surgically-constructed
analogue of a penis *was* a penis for the purpose of the law. It is by no >>> means obviously so. Fortunately being *born* a woman makes the individual much
less likely to commit this, or any, violent act.
Whether this is intrinsic, hormonal (in which case trans men may differ), >>> socialised, or merely a result of being generally weaker than men I don't >>> know. For a cynical view see "The Power" by Naomi Alderman.
I remember Jordan Peterson once claiming the aggressiveness differences
between men and women were much less than people normally expect. He
said something like; if you compare a random man with a random woman,
the more aggressive person will only be the man about 60% of the time.
I suppose it also depends how you measure aggressiveness; the likelihood of cutting sarcasm versus the likelihood of GBH is quite important to most people.
On 21/04/2025 05:51, kat wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:19, JNugent wrote:
On 20/04/2025 08:14, kat wrote:
On 19/04/2025 21:31, The Todal wrote:
On 19/04/2025 19:21, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 05:01, The Todal wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:51, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 10:46, GB wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:55, Jon Ribbens wrote:
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is >>>>>>>>>> put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt >>>>>>>>>> to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues >>>>>>>>>> that affect them.
Are we going to see signs on toilets saying "Cis-Gents" and
"Cis- Ladies"?
With the obvious implication that trans people should hold it >>>>>>>>> until they get home.
In any case, this case was about the interpretation of the
Equality Act. Maybe, space will have to be found in the busy >>>>>>>>> parliamentary timetable for an amendment.
It might be perceived as a burning priority!
After all, the Prime Minister (of all people) has declared that >>>>>>>> he doesn't know what a woman is and might be in need of further >>>>>>>> clarification.
Starmer certainly hasn't declared that "he doesn't know what a
woman is". Where did you get that from? Some witless journalist in >>>>>>> the Daily Mail perhaps?
It's some time ago now (though AIRI, after the July election), he
was asked reporters about what a woman is and whether only women
have a cervix.
You know what he said in answer.
I don't know what he said in answer.
"99.9% of women do not have a penis".
I don't think he was referring to transmen somehow.
However, obviously a trans man might have a cervix. And having a
cervix is not proof of womanhood, given that a cervix might be
removed for medical reasons.
I know that was not written by the immediate PP, but surely that
should have been:
"And [not] having a cervix is not proof of [non-]womanhood, given that
a cervix might be removed for medical reasons"?
In the absence of such an amendment, it made little sense.
Of course, three negatives acting against each other is clumsy, but
that was the only way to make the point without completely re-wording
the sentence.
There is rather more to being a biological woman than having a cervix,
obviously, and a female's body ungoes other changes too, as the years
pass. I recall one time women were referred tp as "bleeders".
Something we only do a part of our lives.
Does the removal of testicles due to cancer mean a man is no longer a man?
I believe that an appropriate term might be "eunuch", though that might
only have referred to someone willingly castrated at an early age for a particular non-medical purpose.
Lammy reckons men can "grow a cervix".
Perhaps there has been a case from 1879 reported in the Gunness Book
of records or something?
Somehow I doubt it.
So one wonders why he thought (much less said) it.
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:12:13 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 11:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 00:37:59 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityIs gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the >>>>>>> discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>
gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal >>>>>> 1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by >>>>> examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome >>>>> arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth >>>>> (sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly >>>>> uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than >>>>> intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong. >>>>>
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were >>>>>> banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while
approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that
possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't understand >>>> why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites"
though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range >>>> of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
Your definition is poorly worded. An hermaphrodite has to possess *effective*
reproductive organs of both sexes, which means it has to produce both male and
female reproductive cells (gametes) which in mammals at least would mean >>> having both male and female gonads (testes and ovaries) as well as the means
to deliver said gametes. This does not happen in mammals.
The colloquial use of hermaphrodite for ambiguous genitalia is just plain >>> wrong, and obsolete even in the wrong colloquial sense.
We can either take your definition or a dictionary definition. An
example is here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hermaphrodite
which limits the definition to the mere possession of both male and
female reproductive organs.
Perhaps you're getting confused with parthenogenesis?
It makes no mention of delivery both sex's gametes. If you can find a UK
British dictionary that promotes your belief do fee free to provide a link. >>
An indication of self fertilisation in a human hermaphrodite is possible:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987710001957 >>
And some claimed examples of self-fertilisation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694
Well Collins dictionary may be a reflection of recidivist colloquial usage but
is medically and scientifically wrong. I expect dictionaries would still allow an uncultured person to describe kids with special educational needs as morons, or perhaps cretins. But it is an obsolete and medically incorrect usage.
On 21/04/2025 12:12, The Todal wrote:
On 21/04/2025 11:39, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in
the company joined the pension scheme at age 21 - but women
couldn't. The answer was I wouldn't need one as my ( non existent at
the time) husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a
husband provides the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight
for single sex spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and
want the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are
going to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major
injustice that single women could retire, and receive their state
pension at 60, whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the
long known fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
I think there are still legitimate grievances about equal pay, with
women often being paid less than men for the same job of work.
...or completely *different* jobs, like checkout operators (in a nice
air conditioned supermarket) as opposed to the gruelling work of
warehouse worker (in draughty warehouses with forklifts whizzing
around), which are considered equivalent only because one attracts women
and the other attracts men.
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"RJH" <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote in message news:vu3ce1$aisg$1@dont-email.me...
'Their'?! On the occasions that those sorts of things happen, I'd
suggest that any evidence of harm is rare to the point of
insignificance in real life. That's partly because of context, and
partly because anybody happening to notice doesn't care. It seems to
me that significance gained after the act is pure media hype.
I'll ask again - where's your evidence of harm?
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:4379638257.9f68d511@uninhabited.net...
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:58:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false...
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
Your statement is not a reflection of what Dhejne said. She said one
particular anti-trans implication, trans women being a rape risk, was
not one of the studies findings. She did not withdraw the finding
that transwomen had a male pattern of criminality. Rape risk was
simply not one of the end points studied. And observers of the study
are *still* despite her denial that this was a formal finding,
entitled to suspect that transwomen with a male pattern of
criminality may be as much of a rape risk as men living as men. This
has not been formally tested, but is certainly a possible implication
of a male pattern of criminality.
Unfortunately, Mr Ribbens appears to be subject to some confusion on the matter.
Nobody, myself certainly, has specifically referred to the risk of "rape"
It seems to me, to be a fair assumption at least, that women seek
refuge in safe spaces so as to be safe from generalised male violence
- from the fear of being beaten up by their partners, or spouses or
just men generally.
Whereas the study finding - which has yet to be satisfactorily challenged
by anyone as far as I am aware
On 21/04/2025 12:12, The Todal wrote:
I think there are still legitimate grievances about equal pay, with women
often being paid less than men for the same job of work.
...or completely *different* jobs, like checkout operators (in a nice air conditioned supermarket) as opposed to the gruelling work of warehouse
worker (in draughty warehouses with forklifts whizzing around), which are considered equivalent only because one attracts women and the other
attracts men.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m6nbafF3e41U1@mid.individual.net...
And let's not forget that "the same job of work" has not proven to be a necessity in
actual cases. Think of the famous Dagenham Ford dispute, where the comparison was
between men working on the assembly line and women working in the production of
upholstery.
The comparison ISTR was between "unskilled" men working on the line -
which is indeed unskilled, as men could be switched betweenb jobs certainly on the PATA* line, if not the foundry, and the skilled work being done by
the women in assembling and stitching the seat covers and other trim
All work in Ford don't forget, was against the clock. As against piece
work elsewhere.
On the line it was governed by the line speed set by the management supposedly following consultation with the stewards. In the trim shop
if a woman didn't come up to speed, was insufficiently "skilled" IOW,
then she would simply be shown the door. Assuming she was
taken on, in the first place.
Quick question: Have you ever been present at a car assembly line while it was
operating?
*I* have (sent there to effect some electrical repairs). It was hell on stilts.
Mainly because of the deafening noise.
So you never effected any repairs in the trim shop with 200 sewing
machines on the go, all at the same time, then ?
On 21/04/2025 15:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:12:13 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 11:59, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 00:37:59 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityIs gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of >>>>>>> gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the >>>>>>>> discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>
1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by >>>>>> examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome >>>>>> arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth >>>>>> (sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly >>>>>> uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than >>>>>> intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong. >>>>>>
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were >>>>>>> banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while >>>>>>> approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that
possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't understand >>>>> why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites"
though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range >>>>> of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
Your definition is poorly worded. An hermaphrodite has to possess *effective*
reproductive organs of both sexes, which means it has to produce both male and
female reproductive cells (gametes) which in mammals at least would mean >>>> having both male and female gonads (testes and ovaries) as well as the means
to deliver said gametes. This does not happen in mammals.
The colloquial use of hermaphrodite for ambiguous genitalia is just plain >>>> wrong, and obsolete even in the wrong colloquial sense.
We can either take your definition or a dictionary definition. An
example is here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hermaphrodite
which limits the definition to the mere possession of both male and
female reproductive organs.
Perhaps you're getting confused with parthenogenesis?
It makes no mention of delivery both sex's gametes. If you can find a UK >>> British dictionary that promotes your belief do fee free to provide a link. >>>
An indication of self fertilisation in a human hermaphrodite is possible: >>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987710001957 >>>
And some claimed examples of self-fertilisation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694
Well Collins dictionary may be a reflection of recidivist colloquial usage but
is medically and scientifically wrong. I expect dictionaries would still
allow an uncultured person to describe kids with special educational needs as
morons, or perhaps cretins. But it is an obsolete and medically incorrect
usage.
There really is no need to stoop so low as to call those who quote and
adhere to current dictionary descriptions of words as morons or cretins.
Furthermore you are unable to furnish an example of your personal
definition of a hermaphrodite however much you have probably tried. I
have already agreed with you that hermaphrodite is generally considered
an outdated term.
In much the same way there are many in denial that a tomato is of course
a vegetable that one has a with a salad, or with their bacon and lettuce
in a sandwich.
On 21/04/2025 13:48, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageWhat does that have to do with pay rates?>
news:m6nbafF3e41U1@mid.individual.net...
And let's not forget that "the same job of work" has not proven to be a necessity in
actual cases. Think of the famous Dagenham Ford dispute, where the comparison was
between men working on the assembly line and women working in the production of
upholstery.
The comparison ISTR was between "unskilled" men working on the line -
which is indeed unskilled, as men could be switched betweenb jobs certainly >> on the PATA* line, if not the foundry, and the skilled work being done by
the women in assembling and stitching the seat covers and other trim
All work in Ford don't forget, was against the clock. As against piece
work elsewhere.
On the line it was governed by the line speed set by the management
supposedly following consultation with the stewards. In the trim shop
if a woman didn't come up to speed, was insufficiently "skilled" IOW,
then she would simply be shown the door. Assuming she was
taken on, in the first place.
Quick question: Have you ever been present at a car assembly line while it was
operating?
*I* have (sent there to effect some electrical repairs). It was hell on stilts.
Mainly because of the deafening noise.
So you never effected any repairs in the trim shop with 200 sewing
machines on the go, all at the same time, then ?
Not at the Ford factory. But plenty of upholstery and clothing workshops in the East
End (there were loads of those in those days). I don't believe that any upholstery
shop - no matter how big - could compete for noise with the metal bashing end of a car
plant.
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I
understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always
use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pac the use of a
trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer to
things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but
that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to coerce
me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words they have
made up for their own purposes).
On 21/04/2025 15:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:12:13 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 11:59, Roger Hayter wrote:Well Collins dictionary may be a reflection of recidivist colloquial
On 21 Apr 2025 at 00:37:59 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by >>>>>>>> the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter
holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected >>>>>>>> from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the >>>>>>>> discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>>
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of >>>>>>> gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a >>>>>>> nominal
1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is
determined by
examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome >>>>>> arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at >>>>>> birth
(sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition
of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are
exceedingly
uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term >>>>>> than
intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain
wrong.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were >>>>>>> banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes.
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while >>>>>>> approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that
possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't
understand
why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites"
though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range >>>>> of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
Your definition is poorly worded. An hermaphrodite has to possess
*effective*
reproductive organs of both sexes, which means it has to produce
both male and
female reproductive cells (gametes) which in mammals at least would
mean
having both male and female gonads (testes and ovaries) as well as
the means
to deliver said gametes. This does not happen in mammals.
The colloquial use of hermaphrodite for ambiguous genitalia is just
plain
wrong, and obsolete even in the wrong colloquial sense.
We can either take your definition or a dictionary definition. An
example is here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hermaphrodite >>> which limits the definition to the mere possession of both male and
female reproductive organs.
Perhaps you're getting confused with parthenogenesis?
It makes no mention of delivery both sex's gametes. If you can find a UK >>> British dictionary that promotes your belief do fee free to provide a
link.
An indication of self fertilisation in a human hermaphrodite is
possible:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987710001957
And some claimed examples of self-fertilisation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694 >>
usage but
is medically and scientifically wrong. I expect dictionaries would still >> allow an uncultured person to describe kids with special educational
needs as
morons, or perhaps cretins. But it is an obsolete and medically incorrect
usage.
There really is no need to stoop so low as to call those who quote and
adhere to current dictionary descriptions of words as morons or cretins.
Furthermore you are unable to furnish an example of your personal
definition of a hermaphrodite however much you have probably tried. I
have already agreed with you that hermaphrodite is generally considered
an outdated term.
In much the same way there are many in denial that a tomato is of course
a vegetable that one has a with a salad, or with their bacon and lettuce
in a sandwich.
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 11:39:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going
to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that >>> single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact
that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
It actually made sense for men when;
a. Most women only had a pension due to their husband's contributions;
b. Most men were a few years older than their wives;
c. Men needed someone to feed, entertain and look after them and their
houses
once they retired.
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years
required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was
quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically
designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually existed.
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:44:22 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 11:39:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going >>>> to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that >>>> single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact >>>> that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
It actually made sense for men when;
a. Most women only had a pension due to their husband's contributions;
b. Most men were a few years older than their wives;
c. Men needed someone to feed, entertain and look after them and their houses
once they retired.
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was >>> quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically
designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually
existed.
But there have been a lot of social and economic changes since then.
Absolutely agree. I'm just saying that the superficial view that the old system was weighted in favour of women isn't looking at the whole picture.
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody and
anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather make
that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable
adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to provide
wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade swooped in and
made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies.
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m6mqp5Fqu4U1@mid.individual.net...
On 21/04/2025 12:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:vu578s$216d8$1@dont-email.me...
On 20/04/2025 14:19, kat wrote:
Back in the late 60s I started work and queried why men working in the company
joined
the pension scheme at age 21 - but women couldn't. The answer was I wouldn't need
one
as my ( non existent at the time) husband would provide it.
I also couldn't have the available to men cheap mortgage deal - "a husband provides
the home"
Those are the rights we had to fight for. We didn't need to fight for single sex
spaces as we already had them.
But now men can freely demand all the rights we did fight for - and want the rest.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going to pay to men
(as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that single women could retire,
and receive their state pension at 60,
Married women as well of course. But not to retire from housework, cooking, >>> cleanng etc
All of which was always unpaid of course.
So that in the case of married women at least, were they to be compensated >>> for half of the housework they did over the course of their married leives, presumably
paid at minimum wage levels who do you imagine might come out on top ?
There used to be, maybe still is, a calculation ( made initially to persuade men to
take life insurance on their wives) of how much it would cost to hire people to do all
the various jobs a wife did for free.
It was far above the average wage.
--
As Ms Agatha Christie would doubtless be among the first to point out, would not such calculations simply offer too much of an incentive to a certain type of man
to simply *dispose of" the older model, trade up to a younger one, keep quiet about the insurance payout, and again have the housework done for free ? .
On 21/04/2025 13:08, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 12:23, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going to >>>> pay to men
(as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that single women >>>> could retire,
and receive their state pension at 60,
Married women as well of course. But not to retire from housework, cooking, >>> cleanng etc
All of which was always unpaid of course.
So that in the case of married women at least, were they to be compensated >>> for half of the housework they did over the course of their married leives, >>> presumably
paid at minimum wage levels who do you imagine might come out on top ? >>>
There used to be, maybe still is, a calculation ( made initially to persuade >> men to take life insurance on their wives) of how much it would cost to hire >> people to do all the various jobs a wife did for free.
Did that include sexual services?
It was far above the average wage.
That's not work in the conventional sense as they are doing it to benefit their
families.
I (as a single man) might as well insist on being paid to get my own breakfast
in the morning.
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:50:13 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
...or completely *different* jobs, like checkout operators (in a nice
air conditioned supermarket) as opposed to the gruelling work of
warehouse worker (in draughty warehouses with forklifts whizzing
around), which are considered equivalent only because one attracts women
and the other attracts men.
OTOH, the warehouse workers may be in another section of the same building, >and don't have to deal with the stupid and malevolent general public, so could >conceivably have it easier. I simply don't agree that they are in any obvious >way non-comparable.
On 21/04/2025 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/04/2025 15:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well Collins dictionary may be a reflection of recidivist colloquial
usage but
is medically and scientifically wrong. I expect dictionaries would still >>> allow an uncultured person to describe kids with special educational
needs as
morons, or perhaps cretins. But it is an obsolete and medically incorrect >>> usage.
There really is no need to stoop so low as to call those who quote and
adhere to current dictionary descriptions of words as morons or cretins.
I think you've misunderstood.
It is "kids with special educational needs" who were (officially)
categorised as cretins, morons or even idiots.
Those words had specific dictionary definitions, though such definitions
will nowadys probably maked as archaic.
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody
and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather
make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable
adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to
provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade
swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one
wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies.
user cannot get on.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody
and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather
make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable
adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to
provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade
swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one
wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies.
user cannot get on.
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They
can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck.
People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO easy) hold a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand
Roger Hayter wrote:
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand
Yes, but it'd probably take one of your fingers off given half a chance.
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody and >>>> anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather make >>> that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable
adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to provide >>> wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade swooped in and
made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one
wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies.
It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair
user cannot get on.
On 21 Apr 2025 17:57:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:50:13 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote: >>
...or completely *different* jobs, like checkout operators (in a nice
air conditioned supermarket) as opposed to the gruelling work of
warehouse worker (in draughty warehouses with forklifts whizzing
around), which are considered equivalent only because one attracts women >>> and the other attracts men.
OTOH, the warehouse workers may be in another section of the same building, >> and don't have to deal with the stupid and malevolent general public, so could
conceivably have it easier. I simply don't agree that they are in any obvious
way non-comparable.
Actually, physical demands are one of the legitimate reasons to evaluate a job as having a higher value for the purposes of the Equality Act. But it's only one of several factors which need to be considered when carrying out a job evaluation, and there may be others which would indicate a higher value for checkout operators.
The EHRC publishes a useful guide to gender-neutral job evaluation which, if followed, would generally avoid any liability for equal pay claims:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/our-work-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-intro-guide-march-2014.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/4229d9vd
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather
make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to
provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade
swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies.
user cannot get on.
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They
can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space
properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck.
People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming
cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO easy) hold a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping hold of parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays?
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4379638257.9f68d511@uninhabited.net...
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:58:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false...
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
Your statement is not a reflection of what Dhejne said. She said one
particular anti-trans implication, trans women being a rape risk, was
not one of the studies findings. She did not withdraw the finding
that transwomen had a male pattern of criminality. Rape risk was
simply not one of the end points studied. And observers of the study
are *still* despite her denial that this was a formal finding,
entitled to suspect that transwomen with a male pattern of
criminality may be as much of a rape risk as men living as men. This
has not been formally tested, but is certainly a possible implication
of a male pattern of criminality.
Unfortunately, Mr Ribbens appears to be subject to some confusion on the
matter.
The confusion appears to be entirely on your part.
Nobody, myself certainly, has specifically referred to the risk of "rape"
For example, I haven't mentioned that either.
It seems to me, to be a fair assumption at least, that women seek
refuge in safe spaces so as to be safe from generalised male violence
- from the fear of being beaten up by their partners, or spouses or
just men generally.
Whereas the study finding - which has yet to be satisfactorily challenged
by anyone as far as I am aware
The interpretation you are pushing has been challenged by the author
of the report you are using to try and justify it.
On 22/04/2025 12:24, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody and >>>>> anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather make >>>> that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable
adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to provide >>>> wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade swooped in and >>>> made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one
wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies.
It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair
user cannot get on.
Same if there are four buggies or two wheelchairs. Someone has to wait
for the next bus.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn100dcej.3oo.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4379638257.9f68d511@uninhabited.net...
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:58:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false...
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
Your statement is not a reflection of what Dhejne said. She said one
particular anti-trans implication, trans women being a rape risk, was
not one of the studies findings. She did not withdraw the finding
that transwomen had a male pattern of criminality. Rape risk was
simply not one of the end points studied. And observers of the study
are *still* despite her denial that this was a formal finding,
entitled to suspect that transwomen with a male pattern of
criminality may be as much of a rape risk as men living as men. This
has not been formally tested, but is certainly a possible implication
of a male pattern of criminality.
Unfortunately, Mr Ribbens appears to be subject to some confusion on the >>> matter.
The confusion appears to be entirely on your part.
Nobody, myself certainly, has specifically referred to the risk of "rape" >>For example, I haven't mentioned that either.
It seems to me, to be a fair assumption at least, that women seek
refuge in safe spaces so as to be safe from generalised male violence
- from the fear of being beaten up by their partners, or spouses or
just men generally.
Whereas the study finding - which has yet to be satisfactorily challenged >>> by anyone as far as I am aware
The interpretation you are pushing has been challenged by the author
of the report you are using to try and justify it.
What "interpretation" exactly ?
This is what the report says
quote:
MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of
an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be
convicted of a violent offence. The group had no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or
for violent offending.
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
To repeat
MtF transitioners were 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence than female comparators.
This isn't an "interpretation". It's an objective statistic. Which having gone unchallenged* can be assumed to be a true reflection of reality.
Now read it again.
"!8 times" !
So we're not talking a mealy-mouthed "1.465 times as many". Or even
"Twice as many"; which of itself, would be hard enough to argue with.
But "18 times" as many ! Convictions for violent offences among
MtF transitioners as compared with those women, who you are demanding
they should be allowed to share "safe spaces" with.
Quite frankly, I fail to see how anybody can successfully argue against
this astonishing statistic . Although doubtless many have tried
with straw men of their own devising. .
bb
* Such is the importance of this topic, that it's safe to assume that had
it been possible to produce any statistics which could undermine this
study - and the actual figures going back decades will still all
be available, after all, then those statistics, and the subsequent refutation, would have emerged by now.
Please note: the absence of any reference to suicide attempts, mediocre billionaire children's authors, or any other similar irrelevant
distractions in this post. 18 times as many !
On 22/04/2025 14:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 17:57:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:50:13 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
...or completely *different* jobs, like checkout operators (in a nice
air conditioned supermarket) as opposed to the gruelling work of
warehouse worker (in draughty warehouses with forklifts whizzing
around), which are considered equivalent only because one attracts women >>>> and the other attracts men.
OTOH, the warehouse workers may be in another section of the same building, >>> and don't have to deal with the stupid and malevolent general public, so could
conceivably have it easier. I simply don't agree that they are in any obvious
way non-comparable.
Actually, physical demands are one of the legitimate reasons to evaluate a >> job as having a higher value for the purposes of the Equality Act. But it's >> only one of several factors which need to be considered when carrying out a >> job evaluation, and there may be others which would indicate a higher value >> for checkout operators.
The EHRC publishes a useful guide to gender-neutral job evaluation which, if >> followed, would generally avoid any liability for equal pay claims:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/our-work-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-intro-guide-march-2014.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/4229d9vd
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall
basis of the difference in pay between people, whether skilled or
unskilled, factory floor, office or manager.
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message news:slrn100dcej.3oo.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4379638257.9f68d511@uninhabited.net...
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:58:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false...
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
Your statement is not a reflection of what Dhejne said. She said one
particular anti-trans implication, trans women being a rape risk, was
not one of the studies findings. She did not withdraw the finding
that transwomen had a male pattern of criminality. Rape risk was
simply not one of the end points studied. And observers of the study
are *still* despite her denial that this was a formal finding,
entitled to suspect that transwomen with a male pattern of
criminality may be as much of a rape risk as men living as men. This
has not been formally tested, but is certainly a possible implication
of a male pattern of criminality.
Unfortunately, Mr Ribbens appears to be subject to some confusion on the >>> matter.
The confusion appears to be entirely on your part.
Nobody, myself certainly, has specifically referred to the risk of "rape" >>For example, I haven't mentioned that either.
It seems to me, to be a fair assumption at least, that women seek
refuge in safe spaces so as to be safe from generalised male violence
- from the fear of being beaten up by their partners, or spouses or
just men generally.
Whereas the study finding - which has yet to be satisfactorily challenged >>> by anyone as far as I am aware
The interpretation you are pushing has been challenged by the author
of the report you are using to try and justify it.
What "interpretation" exactly ?
This is what the report says
quote:
MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of
an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be
convicted of a violent offence. The group had no statistically significant differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or
for violent offending.
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
To repeat
MtF transitioners were 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence than female comparators.
This isn't an "interpretation". It's an objective statistic. Which having gone unchallenged* can be assumed to be a true reflection of reality.
Now read it again.
"!8 times" !
So we're not talking a mealy-mouthed "1.465 times as many". Or even
"Twice as many"; which of itself, would be hard enough to argue with.
But "18 times" as many ! Convictions for violent offences among
MtF transitioners as compared with those women, who you are demanding
they should be allowed to share "safe spaces" with.
Quite frankly, I fail to see how anybody can successfully argue against
this astonishing statistic . Although doubtless many have tried
with straw men of their own devising. .
bb
* Such is the importance of this topic, that it's safe to assume that had
it been possible to produce any statistics which could undermine this
study - and the actual figures going back decades will still all
be available, after all, then those statistics, and the subsequent refutation, would have emerged by now.
Please note: the absence of any reference to suicide attempts, mediocre billionaire children's authors, or any other similar irrelevant
distractions in this post. 18 times as many !
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to release statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups
commit the most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to
encourage discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather similar to releasing statistics about how many trans people
commit crimes. Easy to say that we should shun and avoid women who have
a masculine look about them - we can't peek into their underpants so
let's assume that they might be predatory sex offenders. But what about Albanians, Romanians, Poles? Do we say "don't hire this person for your building extension, he's more likely to take your money and disappear
because he's Albanian?"
On 22 Apr 2025 at 17:54:58 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 14:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 17:57:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:50:13 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
...or completely *different* jobs, like checkout operators (in a nice >>>>> air conditioned supermarket) as opposed to the gruelling work of
warehouse worker (in draughty warehouses with forklifts whizzing
around), which are considered equivalent only because one attracts women >>>>> and the other attracts men.
OTOH, the warehouse workers may be in another section of the same building,
and don't have to deal with the stupid and malevolent general public, so could
conceivably have it easier. I simply don't agree that they are in any obvious
way non-comparable.
Actually, physical demands are one of the legitimate reasons to evaluate a >>> job as having a higher value for the purposes of the Equality Act. But it's >>> only one of several factors which need to be considered when carrying out a >>> job evaluation, and there may be others which would indicate a higher value >>> for checkout operators.
The EHRC publishes a useful guide to gender-neutral job evaluation which, if
followed, would generally avoid any liability for equal pay claims:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/our-work-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-intro-guide-march-2014.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/4229d9vd
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall
basis of the difference in pay between people, whether skilled or
unskilled, factory floor, office or manager.
That is not a universally held view. So you would also abandon the minimum wage?
The author apparently did a later subgroup analysis that purported to
show the effect was less in more recent cohorts. But we all know how
valid retrospective subgroup analyses are - usually a weaselly way to
find effects when there are none, or disavow effects the sponsor of
the study didn't really want to see. They start off from shaky
statistical foundations.
On 2025-04-22, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The author apparently did a later subgroup analysis that purported to
show the effect was less in more recent cohorts. But we all know how
valid retrospective subgroup analyses are - usually a weaselly way to
find effects when there are none, or disavow effects the sponsor of
the study didn't really want to see. They start off from shaky
statistical foundations.
It wasn't later, and it didn't "purport" to show the effect was "less",
it showed there was no "effect" whatsoever. I'm not sure why you felt
the need to be so inaccurate there in what you said.
On 21/04/2025 17:44, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 11:39:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going >>>> to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice
that
single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact >>>> that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
It actually made sense for men when;
a. Most women only had a pension due to their husband's contributions; >>>
b. Most men were a few years older than their wives;
c. Men needed someone to feed, entertain and look after them and
their houses
once they retired.
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years
required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own
was
quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically
designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually
existed.
Women's pensions (at least to start with) were for *single* women. In
fact it was informally known as the "spinster's pension". Married women benefited from their husband's pension, which was paid at an enhanced
rate I think. Families, nuclear or otherwise, were irrelevant.
On 22/04/2025 12:36, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair >>>>> user cannot get on.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery. >>>>>>>
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to >>>>>>> provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade >>>>>>> swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>>
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They >>>> can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space >>>> properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck. >>>> People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming >>>> cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO
easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping
hold of
parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and
occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays?
There was a McLaren push chair which was very light and portable, the
two sides collapsed together and it was about as easy to carry as an
umbrella when folded, though obviously a bit heavier. Other
manufacturers opted for more bulky luxurious looking pushchairs.
Yebbut... what about proper prams, which could not be reduced in size at
all?
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 13:48, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
And let's not forget that "the same job of work" has not proven to be a necessity in
actual cases. Think of the famous Dagenham Ford dispute, where the comparison was
between men working on the assembly line and women working in the production of
upholstery.
The comparison ISTR was between "unskilled" men working on the line -
which is indeed unskilled, as men could be switched betweenb jobs certainly >>> on the PATA* line, if not the foundry, and the skilled work being done by >>> the women in assembling and stitching the seat covers and other trim
All work in Ford don't forget, was against the clock. As against piece
work elsewhere.
On the line it was governed by the line speed set by the management
supposedly following consultation with the stewards. In the trim shop
if a woman didn't come up to speed, was insufficiently "skilled" IOW,
then she would simply be shown the door. Assuming she was
taken on, in the first place.
What does that have to do with pay rates?>
Er, because different skill levels were paid at different rates.
What's interesting about the Dagenham dispute was that the women weren't
paid less on the grounds that they were women; they were paid less because it was assumed that becasue they were women they were incapable of doing
skilled work or semi-skilled work, and so couldn't qualify for the appropriate
rates.
Sexism by the back door IOW.
cue Mr Demian
snip
Quick question: Have you ever been present at a car assembly line while it was
operating?
*I* have (sent there to effect some electrical repairs). It was hell on stilts.
Mainly because of the deafening noise.
So you never effected any repairs in the trim shop with 200 sewing
machines on the go, all at the same time, then ?
Not at the Ford factory. But plenty of upholstery and clothing workshops in the East
End (there were loads of those in those days). I don't believe that any upholstery
shop - no matter how big - could compete for noise with the metal bashing end of a car
plant.
ISTR one sewing machine being operated in the living room was enough
to drown out the TV. Quite what sort of racket 200 of them going at the
same time would make can only be guessed at.
While the noise on assembly lines would probably mainly have been
generated by the air tools being uses to screw components onto the
moving bodies.
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair >>>> user cannot get on.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to
provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade
swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They
can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space
properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck.
People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming
cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO
easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping
hold of
parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and
occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays?
There was a McLaren push chair which was very light and portable, the
two sides collapsed together and it was about as easy to carry as an
umbrella when folded, though obviously a bit heavier. Other
manufacturers opted for more bulky luxurious looking pushchairs.
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall basis of the
difference in pay between people, whether skilled or unskilled, factory floor, office
or manager.
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I >>>>>>>> understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always
use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a
trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer to
things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but
that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to coerce
me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words they have
made up for their own purposes).
I agree wth that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people who
are not biologically women.
On 21 Apr 2025 at 18:15:50 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 15:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:12:13 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 11:59, Roger Hayter wrote:Well Collins dictionary may be a reflection of recidivist colloquial usage but
On 21 Apr 2025 at 00:37:59 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the >>>>>>>>> discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of >>>>>>>> gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal
1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by >>>>>>> examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome >>>>>>> arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth
(sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly >>>>>>> uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than >>>>>>> intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong. >>>>>>>
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were >>>>>>>> banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes. >>>>>>>>
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while >>>>>>>> approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that >>>>>> possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't understand >>>>>> why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites" >>>>>> though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range >>>>>> of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
Your definition is poorly worded. An hermaphrodite has to possess *effective*
reproductive organs of both sexes, which means it has to produce both male and
female reproductive cells (gametes) which in mammals at least would mean >>>>> having both male and female gonads (testes and ovaries) as well as the means
to deliver said gametes. This does not happen in mammals.
The colloquial use of hermaphrodite for ambiguous genitalia is just plain >>>>> wrong, and obsolete even in the wrong colloquial sense.
We can either take your definition or a dictionary definition. An
example is here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hermaphrodite >>>> which limits the definition to the mere possession of both male and
female reproductive organs.
Perhaps you're getting confused with parthenogenesis?
It makes no mention of delivery both sex's gametes. If you can find a UK >>>> British dictionary that promotes your belief do fee free to provide a link.
An indication of self fertilisation in a human hermaphrodite is possible: >>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987710001957
And some claimed examples of self-fertilisation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694 >>>
is medically and scientifically wrong. I expect dictionaries would still >>> allow an uncultured person to describe kids with special educational needs as
morons, or perhaps cretins. But it is an obsolete and medically incorrect >>> usage.
There really is no need to stoop so low as to call those who quote and
adhere to current dictionary descriptions of words as morons or cretins.
I'm confused - I thought I was referring to less able children as morons etc. - or not as the case may be.
Furthermore you are unable to furnish an example of your personal
definition of a hermaphrodite however much you have probably tried. I
have already agreed with you that hermaphrodite is generally considered
an outdated term.
Hermaphrodite is *not* in the least an outdated term. It refers to animals (not plants were different terminology is used, and in any case alternation of
generations complicates things) with both male and female function. This is not rare (molluscs and some worms spring to mind, and probably countless sea creatures) but not found in mammals. The word is current and well understood.
There may have been obsolete misuses as a result of ignorance.
In much the same way there are many in denial that a tomato is of course
a vegetable that one has a with a salad, or with their bacon and lettuce
in a sandwich.
I don't think "a vegetable" has ever had a precise meaning, scientific or otherwise. So that option is freely available. Jackfruit is another example of
a fruit which is simultaneously a vegetable. They are intersecting sets, not at all mutually exclusive.
On 22/04/2025 14:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 17:57:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:50:13 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
...or completely *different* jobs, like checkout operators (in a nice
air conditioned supermarket) as opposed to the gruelling work of
warehouse worker (in draughty warehouses with forklifts whizzing
around), which are considered equivalent only because one attracts
women
and the other attracts men.
OTOH, the warehouse workers may be in another section of the same
building,
and don't have to deal with the stupid and malevolent general public,
so could
conceivably have it easier. I simply don't agree that they are in any
obvious
way non-comparable.
Actually, physical demands are one of the legitimate reasons to
evaluate a
job as having a higher value for the purposes of the Equality Act. But
it's
only one of several factors which need to be considered when carrying
out a
job evaluation, and there may be others which would indicate a higher
value
for checkout operators.
The EHRC publishes a useful guide to gender-neutral job evaluation
which, if
followed, would generally avoid any liability for equal pay claims:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/our-work-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-intro-guide-march-2014.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/4229d9vd
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall
basis of the difference in pay between people, whether skilled or
unskilled, factory floor, office or manager.
On 21/04/2025 12:15, Fredxx wrote:
On 21/04/2025 15:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:12:13 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 11:59, Roger Hayter wrote:Well Collins dictionary may be a reflection of recidivist colloquial
On 21 Apr 2025 at 00:37:59 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid>
wrote:
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by >>>>>>>>> the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter >>>>>>>>> holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still
protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the >>>>>>>>> discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of >>>>>>>> gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a >>>>>>>> nominal
1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is
determined by
examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome >>>>>>> arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex
at birth
(sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition >>>>>>> of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are
exceedingly
uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable
term than
intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain
wrong.
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that >>>>>>>> were
banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes. >>>>>>>>
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while >>>>>>>> approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that >>>>>> possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't
understand
why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites" >>>>>> though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the
range
of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
Your definition is poorly worded. An hermaphrodite has to possess
*effective*
reproductive organs of both sexes, which means it has to produce
both male and
female reproductive cells (gametes) which in mammals at least would
mean
having both male and female gonads (testes and ovaries) as well as
the means
to deliver said gametes. This does not happen in mammals.
The colloquial use of hermaphrodite for ambiguous genitalia is just
plain
wrong, and obsolete even in the wrong colloquial sense.
We can either take your definition or a dictionary definition. An
example is here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hermaphrodite >>>> which limits the definition to the mere possession of both male and
female reproductive organs.
Perhaps you're getting confused with parthenogenesis?
It makes no mention of delivery both sex's gametes. If you can find
a UK
British dictionary that promotes your belief do fee free to provide
a link.
An indication of self fertilisation in a human hermaphrodite is
possible:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987710001957 >>>>
And some claimed examples of self-fertilisation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694 >>>
usage but
is medically and scientifically wrong. I expect dictionaries would
still
allow an uncultured person to describe kids with special educational
needs as
morons, or perhaps cretins. But it is an obsolete and medically
incorrect
usage.
There really is no need to stoop so low as to call those who quote and
adhere to current dictionary descriptions of words as morons or cretins.
I think you've misunderstood.
It is "kids with special educational needs" who were (officially)
categorised as cretins, morons or even idiots.
Those words had specific dictionary definitions, though such definitions
will nowadys probably maked as archaic.
Furthermore you are unable to furnish an example of your personal
definition of a hermaphrodite however much you have probably tried. I
have already agreed with you that hermaphrodite is generally
considered an outdated term.
In much the same way there are many in denial that a tomato is of
course a vegetable that one has a with a salad, or with their bacon
and lettuce in a sandwich.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 9:57:33 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is that decided for all time?
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to release statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups
commit the most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to
encourage discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather similar to releasing statistics about how many trans people
commit crimes. Easy to say that we should shun and avoid women who have
a masculine look about them - we can't peek into their underpants so
let's assume that they might be predatory sex offenders. But what about Albanians, Romanians, Poles? Do we say "don't hire this person for your building extension, he's more likely to take your money and disappear
because he's Albanian?"
see
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjln7zzz8eo
On 22/04/2025 18:43, The Todal wrote:
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to
release statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups
commit the most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to
encourage discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it
seems rather similar to releasing statistics about how many trans
people commit crimes. Easy to say that we should shun and avoid women
who have a masculine look about them - we can't peek into their
underpants so let's assume that they might be predatory sex offenders.
But what about Albanians, Romanians, Poles? Do we say "don't hire this
person for your building extension, he's more likely to take your
money and disappear because he's Albanian?"
If there is a criminal or undesirable characteristic that can be
identified, why should the public *not* know? Surely they should be
able to take defensive measures based on it?
It's well-known, for example, that most pickpocketing in London is
carried out by Romanian gangs, most grooming of young girls, especially
in the north of England, is perpetuated by Pakistani men, and theft and anti-social behaviour follow 'travellers' as night follows day. It's no good pretending otherwise and that we're all as nice as each other, as
'woke' culture demands.
The truth should be told and should be sacrosanct. It's denial of
freedom of speech if it has to be suppressed.
On 22/04/2025 18:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn100dcej.3oo.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4379638257.9f68d511@uninhabited.net...
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:58:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false... >>>>>>
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
Your statement is not a reflection of what Dhejne said. She said one >>>>> particular anti-trans implication, trans women being a rape risk, was >>>>> not one of the studies findings. She did not withdraw the finding
that transwomen had a male pattern of criminality. Rape risk was
simply not one of the end points studied. And observers of the study >>>>> are *still* despite her denial that this was a formal finding,
entitled to suspect that transwomen with a male pattern of
criminality may be as much of a rape risk as men living as men. This >>>>> has not been formally tested, but is certainly a possible implication >>>>> of a male pattern of criminality.
Unfortunately, Mr Ribbens appears to be subject to some confusion on the >>>> matter.
The confusion appears to be entirely on your part.
Nobody, myself certainly, has specifically referred to the risk of "rape" >>>For example, I haven't mentioned that either.
It seems to me, to be a fair assumption at least, that women seek
refuge in safe spaces so as to be safe from generalised male violence
- from the fear of being beaten up by their partners, or spouses or
just men generally.
Whereas the study finding - which has yet to be satisfactorily challenged >>>> by anyone as far as I am aware
The interpretation you are pushing has been challenged by the author
of the report you are using to try and justify it.
What "interpretation" exactly ?
This is what the report says
quote:
MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of
an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be
convicted of a violent offence. The group had no statistically significant >> differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or
for violent offending.
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
To repeat
MtF transitioners were 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent
offence than female comparators.
This isn't an "interpretation". It's an objective statistic. Which having
gone unchallenged* can be assumed to be a true reflection of reality.
Now read it again.
"!8 times" !
So we're not talking a mealy-mouthed "1.465 times as many". Or even
"Twice as many"; which of itself, would be hard enough to argue with.
But "18 times" as many ! Convictions for violent offences among
MtF transitioners as compared with those women, who you are demanding
they should be allowed to share "safe spaces" with.
Quite frankly, I fail to see how anybody can successfully argue against
this astonishing statistic . Although doubtless many have tried
with straw men of their own devising. .
bb
* Such is the importance of this topic, that it's safe to assume that had
it been possible to produce any statistics which could undermine this
study - and the actual figures going back decades will still all
be available, after all, then those statistics, and the subsequent
refutation, would have emerged by now.
Please note: the absence of any reference to suicide attempts, mediocre
billionaire children's authors, or any other similar irrelevant
distractions in this post. 18 times as many !
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to encourage discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy to say that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
we can't peek into their underpants so let's assume that they might be predatory sex
offenders.
But what about Albanians, Romanians, Poles? Do we say "don't hire this person for your
building extension, he's more likely to take your money and disappear because he's
Albanian?"
see
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjln7zzz8eo
On 21/04/2025 16:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 18:15:50 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 15:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:12:13 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 11:59, Roger Hayter wrote:Well Collins dictionary may be a reflection of recidivist colloquial usage but
On 21 Apr 2025 at 00:37:59 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>
On 20/04/2025 17:09, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 20 Apr 2025 at 13:13:01 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>>>
On 16/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the >>>>>>>>>> discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is gender at birth determined by chromosomes, or by perception of >>>>>>>>> gender. What about hermaphrodites? Intersex is meant to affect a nominal
1 in 100 people.
There are no known human hermaphrodites. Sex at birth is determined by >>>>>>>> examination. As you say, it does not always coincide with chromosome >>>>>>>> arrangements, and it rarely has to be revised in childhood. Sex at birth
(sometimes revised in childhood) is a more reasonable definition of biological
sex than a chromosome test, but cases where they differ are exceedingly
uncommon. Disorder of sexual development is a more acceptable term than
intersex nowadays, and hermaphrodite has always been just plain wrong. >>>>>>>>
By way of example there are some notable 'female' athletes that were >>>>>>>>> banned from competing on account they had X and Y chromosomes. >>>>>>>>>
FYI Strangely I sent a post on the 17th @ 13:48 and though while >>>>>>>>> approved never got to the news.eternal-september.org server.
I could mention Mary but I'll refrain.
I was going by:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
"A hermaphrodite is an organism, like some plants and animals, that >>>>>>> possesses both male and female reproductive organs", so don't understand
why you believe there are no known "no known human hermaphrodites" >>>>>>> though accept the term is outdated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
suggests "The number of births with ambiguous genitals is in the range >>>>>>> of 1:4,500–1:2,000 (0.02%–0.05%)"
What then?
Your definition is poorly worded. An hermaphrodite has to possess *effective*
reproductive organs of both sexes, which means it has to produce both male and
female reproductive cells (gametes) which in mammals at least would mean >>>>>> having both male and female gonads (testes and ovaries) as well as the means
to deliver said gametes. This does not happen in mammals.
The colloquial use of hermaphrodite for ambiguous genitalia is just plain
wrong, and obsolete even in the wrong colloquial sense.
We can either take your definition or a dictionary definition. An
example is here:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hermaphrodite >>>>> which limits the definition to the mere possession of both male and
female reproductive organs.
Perhaps you're getting confused with parthenogenesis?
It makes no mention of delivery both sex's gametes. If you can find a UK >>>>> British dictionary that promotes your belief do fee free to provide a link.
An indication of self fertilisation in a human hermaphrodite is possible: >>>>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987710001957
And some claimed examples of self-fertilisation:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987717302694 >>>>
is medically and scientifically wrong. I expect dictionaries would still >>>> allow an uncultured person to describe kids with special educational needs as
morons, or perhaps cretins. But it is an obsolete and medically incorrect >>>> usage.
There really is no need to stoop so low as to call those who quote and
adhere to current dictionary descriptions of words as morons or cretins.
I'm confused - I thought I was referring to less able children as morons etc.
- or not as the case may be.
Furthermore you are unable to furnish an example of your personal
definition of a hermaphrodite however much you have probably tried. I
have already agreed with you that hermaphrodite is generally considered
an outdated term.
Hermaphrodite is *not* in the least an outdated term. It refers to animals >> (not plants were different terminology is used, and in any case alternation of
generations complicates things) with both male and female function. This is >> not rare (molluscs and some worms spring to mind, and probably countless sea >> creatures) but not found in mammals. The word is current and well understood.
There may have been obsolete misuses as a result of ignorance.
In much the same way there are many in denial that a tomato is of course >>> a vegetable that one has a with a salad, or with their bacon and lettuce >>> in a sandwich.
I don't think "a vegetable" has ever had a precise meaning, scientific or
otherwise. So that option is freely available. Jackfruit is another example of
a fruit which is simultaneously a vegetable. They are intersecting sets, not >> at all mutually exclusive.
Surely all plant fruits are vegetable? Fruit is a sub-set.
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 9:57:33 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from
sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is that decided for all time? I ask cos there was dorrian which ruled similarly,
that was overturned by haldane now we have SC ruling overwise. Then the
EQC lady starts threatening the NHS and other public bodies if they dont change their practices accordingly, but why should they if the whole
question will be challenged in court and overturned again in 2 years
time?
And who knew that toilet use would become such a political issue? Will
there be a whole load of cases reaching the courts with people suing
schools, hospitals & coleges etc who either do comply or dont comply in
some way?
mike
On 22/04/2025 18:12, billy bookcase wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote in message
news:slrn100dcej.3oo.jon+usenet@raven.unequivocal.eu...
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:4379638257.9f68d511@uninhabited.net...
On 21 Apr 2025 at 13:58:13 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-21, billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
From
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
Given Nov 2020
quote:
Written evidence submitted by Professor Rosa
Freedman, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor
Alice Sullivan [GRA2021]
Oh, anti-trans campaigners claim trans people are bad, you say?
How fascinating.
Summary of findings This Swedish cohort study by Dhejne...
et al. (2011)
The researchers state: 'male-to-females . . . retained a male...
pattern regarding criminality.
Has it been discredited?
Well, Dhejne herself says the anti-trans interpetation is false... >>>>>>
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/21023/html/
So what you're saying is you have no evidence?
Your statement is not a reflection of what Dhejne said. She said one >>>>> particular anti-trans implication, trans women being a rape risk, was >>>>> not one of the studies findings. She did not withdraw the finding
that transwomen had a male pattern of criminality. Rape risk was
simply not one of the end points studied. And observers of the study >>>>> are *still* despite her denial that this was a formal finding,
entitled to suspect that transwomen with a male pattern of
criminality may be as much of a rape risk as men living as men. This >>>>> has not been formally tested, but is certainly a possible implication >>>>> of a male pattern of criminality.
Unfortunately, Mr Ribbens appears to be subject to some confusion on the >>>> matter.
The confusion appears to be entirely on your part.
Nobody, myself certainly, has specifically referred to the risk of "rape" >>>For example, I haven't mentioned that either.
It seems to me, to be a fair assumption at least, that women seek
refuge in safe spaces so as to be safe from generalised male violence
- from the fear of being beaten up by their partners, or spouses or
just men generally.
Whereas the study finding - which has yet to be satisfactorily challenged >>>> by anyone as far as I am aware
The interpretation you are pushing has been challenged by the author
of the report you are using to try and justify it.
What "interpretation" exactly ?
This is what the report says
quote:
MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of
an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be
convicted of a violent offence. The group had no statistically significant >> differences from other natal males, for convictions in general or
for violent offending.
unquote:
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
To repeat
MtF transitioners were 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent
offence than female comparators.
This isn't an "interpretation". It's an objective statistic. Which having
gone unchallenged* can be assumed to be a true reflection of reality.
Now read it again.
"!8 times" !
So we're not talking a mealy-mouthed "1.465 times as many". Or even
"Twice as many"; which of itself, would be hard enough to argue with.
But "18 times" as many ! Convictions for violent offences among
MtF transitioners as compared with those women, who you are demanding
they should be allowed to share "safe spaces" with.
Quite frankly, I fail to see how anybody can successfully argue against
this astonishing statistic . Although doubtless many have tried
with straw men of their own devising. .
bb
* Such is the importance of this topic, that it's safe to assume that had
it been possible to produce any statistics which could undermine this
study - and the actual figures going back decades will still all
be available, after all, then those statistics, and the subsequent
refutation, would have emerged by now.
Please note: the absence of any reference to suicide attempts, mediocre
billionaire children's authors, or any other similar irrelevant
distractions in this post. 18 times as many !
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to encourage discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy to say that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
we can't peek into their underpants so let's assume that they might be predatory sex
offenders.
But what about Albanians, Romanians, Poles? Do we say "don't hire this person for your
building extension, he's more likely to take your money and disappear because he's
Albanian?"
see
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjln7zzz8eo
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I >>>>>>>>> understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always
use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a
trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer to >>>>>>> things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but
that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to coerce
me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words they have
made up for their own purposes).
I agree wth that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people who
are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
anagels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy to say that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned" or "avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've been excluded.
we can't peek into their underpants so let's assume that they might be predatory sex
offenders.
The fact that a persons sexuality might not be immediately apparent is an entirely different question. The exact same potentially applies to many men and women. And so the problem you cite, this inability to peek into people's underpants, has always applied. Just so long as there have been exclusively male and female toilets and other facilities.
Or were you unaware of this fact ?
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 9:57:33 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from
sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is that decided for all time? I ask cos there was dorrian which ruled similarly,
that was overturned by haldane now we have SC ruling overwise. Then the
EQC lady starts threatening the NHS and other public bodies if they dont change their practices accordingly, but why should they if the whole
question will be challenged in court and overturned again in 2 years
time?
And who knew that toilet use would become such a political issue? Will
there be a whole load of cases reaching the courts with people suing
schools, hospitals & coleges etc who either do comply or dont comply in
some way?
mike
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather
make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender
neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to
provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade
swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies.
user cannot get on.
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They
can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space
properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck.
People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming
cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO easy) hold a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping hold of parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays?
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:38:27 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 12:36, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair >>>>>> user cannot get on.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied >>>>>>>> participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery. >>>>>>>>
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to >>>>>>>> provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade >>>>>>>> swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>>>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>>>
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They >>>>> can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space >>>>> properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck. >>>>> People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming >>>>> cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO
easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping
hold of
parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and
occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays? >>>>
There was a McLaren push chair which was very light and portable, the
two sides collapsed together and it was about as easy to carry as an
umbrella when folded, though obviously a bit heavier. Other
manufacturers opted for more bulky luxurious looking pushchairs.
Yebbut... what about proper prams, which could not be reduced in size at
all?
I think it is fair to say that no-one, ever, tried to get one on a Routemaster
bus. They were for perambulating, ostentatiously.
On 21/04/2025 17:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:44:22 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 11:39:25 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going >>>>> to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that >>>>> single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact >>>>> that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
It actually made sense for men when;
a. Most women only had a pension due to their husband's contributions; >>>>
b. Most men were a few years older than their wives;
c. Men needed someone to feed, entertain and look after them and their houses
once they retired.
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was >>>> quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically >>>> designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually
existed.
But there have been a lot of social and economic changes since then.
Absolutely agree. I'm just saying that the superficial view that the old
system was weighted in favour of women isn't looking at the whole picture.
I'm not considering whether woman as a whole have a rough deal, just this one issue of injustice to men. (And that not all that seriously; more as a foil to
the whinging "WASPI" women who failed to plan for changes in retirement age.)
On 22/04/2025 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the most >>> crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy to say >>> that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned" or
"avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've been >> excluded.
You continue to miss the very obvious point that trans people are under
no obligation to identify themselves as trans when entering any
building, any "women-only safe space".
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along
the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to
turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and
the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is
one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor
don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the
patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you
think of any wording for such a law?
we can't peek into their underpants so let's assume that they might be
predatory sex
offenders.
The fact that a persons sexuality might not be immediately apparent is an
entirely different question. The exact same potentially applies to many men >> and women. And so the problem you cite, this inability to peek into people's >> underpants, has always applied. Just so long as there have been exclusively >> male and female toilets and other facilities.
Or were you unaware of this fact ?
But that is my point. People are deeply embarrassed if they accidentally wander into the wrong toilets in a pub, hotel, motorway service station.
But actually they don't glare suspiciously at other people whose dress
sense or hairstyle might suggest they are the "wrong" sex to use the facilities. They don't give a damn. Keeping trans people out of toilets
is no more likely to succeed than keeping Romanian people out of toilets.
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair >>>> user cannot get on.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to
provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade
swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They
can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space
properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck.
People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming
cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping hold of >> parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays?
No, but they don't have the big pram and later the folding pushchair ( which for
"easy" read "impossible" for you forgot the assorted bags) but just the one system which converts from a small pram to a much better pushchair, using the same wheel base.
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one issue.
She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
On 22/04/2025 20:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:38:27 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 12:36, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair >>>>>>> user cannot get on.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied >>>>>>>>> participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>>>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery. >>>>>>>>>
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to >>>>>>>>> provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade >>>>>>>>> swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>>>>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>>>>
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They >>>>>> can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space >>>>>> properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck. >>>>>> People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming >>>>>> cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO
easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping
hold of
parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and >>>>> occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays? >>>>>
There was a McLaren push chair which was very light and portable, the
two sides collapsed together and it was about as easy to carry as an
umbrella when folded, though obviously a bit heavier. Other
manufacturers opted for more bulky luxurious looking pushchairs.
Yebbut... what about proper prams, which could not be reduced in size at >>> all?
I think it is fair to say that no-one, ever, tried to get one on a Routemaster
bus. They were for perambulating, ostentatiously.
There was nothing ostentatious about it, small babies need to lie down, Maclaren
folding buggies were not suitable until they were at least 6 months old.
Also they had a rack underneath, at least mine did, for all the shopping - much
done locally, didn't need a bus.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 11:10:06 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair >>>>> user cannot get on.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery. >>>>>>>
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to >>>>>>> provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade >>>>>>> swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>>
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They >>>> can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space >>>> properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck. >>>> People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming >>>> cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping hold of >>> parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays?
No, but they don't have the big pram and later the folding pushchair ( which >> for
"easy" read "impossible" for you forgot the assorted bags) but just the one >> system which converts from a small pram to a much better pushchair, using the
same wheel base.
I've done it on many occasions, with at least a couple of bags of shopping. Ok, it's *nearly* impossible!
On 22/04/2025 18:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 17:54:58 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 22/04/2025 14:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
The EHRC publishes a useful guide to gender-neutral job evaluation
which, if
followed, would generally avoid any liability for equal pay claims:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/our-
work-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-intro-guide-march-2014.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/4229d9vd
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall
basis of the difference in pay between people, whether skilled or
unskilled, factory floor, office or manager.
That is not a universally held view. So you would also abandon the
minimum
wage?
Some statistics for NHS employees: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/gender-pay-gap-report-2023-for-nhs- england/
quote
Structural aspects of NHS England’s workforce, along with those of the broader NHS health and care sector, contribute to our gender pay gap. We
have many more women at lower pay bands than men. The percentage of
women sharply declines at higher pay bands compared to entry level
positions, although women are still in the majority. This is
unacceptable and we are determined to do better.
On 22/04/2025 06:10, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:44, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years
required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their
own was
quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically >>>> designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually
existed.
Women's pensions (at least to start with) were for *single* women. In
fact it was informally known as the "spinster's pension". Married
women benefited from their husband's pension, which was paid at an
enhanced rate I think. Families, nuclear or otherwise, were irrelevant.
A married couple was the basis of the nuclear family (this is the 1940s
we afre peaking of) and policy was made to suit. The approach to Family Allowance (the forerunner of Child Benefit) was founded on the premise
that a man's wages were enough to maintain his wife and one child. FA
was paid only for second and subsequent children.
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that
single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60, whereas
men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
On 22/04/2025 19:23, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 18:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 17:54:58 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 22/04/2025 14:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
The EHRC publishes a useful guide to gender-neutral job evaluation
which, if
followed, would generally avoid any liability for equal pay claims:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/our-
work-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-intro-guide-march-2014.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/4229d9vd
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall
basis of the difference in pay between people, whether skilled or
unskilled, factory floor, office or manager.
That is not a universally held view. So you would also abandon the
minimum
wage?
Some statistics for NHS employees:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/gender-pay-gap-report-2023-for-nhs-
england/
quote
Structural aspects of NHS England’s workforce, along with those of the
broader NHS health and care sector, contribute to our gender pay gap. We
have many more women at lower pay bands than men. The percentage of
women sharply declines at higher pay bands compared to entry level
positions, although women are still in the majority. This is
unacceptable and we are determined to do better.
None if that implies that women are discriminated against, whether systematically or unconsciously. Just that men and women have different
roles in society.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 11:10:06 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair >>>>> user cannot get on.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery. >>>>>>>
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to >>>>>>> provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade >>>>>>> swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>>
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They >>>> can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space >>>> properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck. >>>> People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming >>>> cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping hold of >>> parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays?
No, but they don't have the big pram and later the folding pushchair ( which >> for
"easy" read "impossible" for you forgot the assorted bags) but just the one >> system which converts from a small pram to a much better pushchair, using the
same wheel base.
I've done it on many occasions, with at least a couple of bags of shopping. Ok, it's *nearly* impossible!
On 23 Apr 2025 at 11:14:01 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:38:27 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 12:36, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied >>>>>>>>>> participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable
adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery. >>>>>>>>>>
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to >>>>>>>>>> provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade >>>>>>>>>> swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one
wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>>>>>
user cannot get on.
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They >>>>>>> can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space >>>>>>> properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck. >>>>>>> People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming >>>>>>> cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO >>>>>> easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping >>>>>> hold of
parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and >>>>>> occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays? >>>>>>
There was a McLaren push chair which was very light and portable, the >>>>> two sides collapsed together and it was about as easy to carry as an >>>>> umbrella when folded, though obviously a bit heavier. Other
manufacturers opted for more bulky luxurious looking pushchairs.
Yebbut... what about proper prams, which could not be reduced in size at >>>> all?
I think it is fair to say that no-one, ever, tried to get one on a Routemaster
bus. They were for perambulating, ostentatiously.
There was nothing ostentatious about it, small babies need to lie down,
Maclaren
folding buggies were not suitable until they were at least 6 months old.
Also they had a rack underneath, at least mine did, for all the shopping - much
done locally, didn't need a bus.
I am sure you're right. I may be influenced by mother's jealousy of women who had posh prams. And you might or might not agree that long journeys in public places with a small baby are generally not a good idea from the exposure to infection point of view. This is all a diversion from the management of mega-buggies holding older babies, though.
On 22/04/2025 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2025 06:10, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:44, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was >>>>> quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically >>>>> designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually existed.
Women's pensions (at least to start with) were for *single* women. In fact it
was informally known as the "spinster's pension". Married women benefited >>> from their husband's pension, which was paid at an enhanced rate I think. >>> Families, nuclear or otherwise, were irrelevant.
A married couple was the basis of the nuclear family (this is the 1940s we >> afre peaking of) and policy was made to suit. The approach to Family Allowance
(the forerunner of Child Benefit) was founded on the premise that a man's
wages were enough to maintain his wife and one child. FA was paid only for >> second and subsequent children.
What has that to do with the "spinster's pension", which women teachers relied
on, in the days when women teachers weren't allowed to marry (at least, and not
remain teaching)?
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one issue.
She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly claims to be
vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years. Waiting for
the government's electoral support to implode, under the weight of its
own unsuccessful policies, and adverse external conditions.
On 22 Apr 2025 at 17:54:58 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 14:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 17:57:59 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 21 Apr 2025 at 17:50:13 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
...or completely *different* jobs, like checkout operators (in a nice >>>>> air conditioned supermarket) as opposed to the gruelling work of
warehouse worker (in draughty warehouses with forklifts whizzing
around), which are considered equivalent only because one attracts women >>>>> and the other attracts men.
OTOH, the warehouse workers may be in another section of the same building,
and don't have to deal with the stupid and malevolent general public, so could
conceivably have it easier. I simply don't agree that they are in any obvious
way non-comparable.
Actually, physical demands are one of the legitimate reasons to evaluate a >>> job as having a higher value for the purposes of the Equality Act. But it's >>> only one of several factors which need to be considered when carrying out a >>> job evaluation, and there may be others which would indicate a higher value >>> for checkout operators.
The EHRC publishes a useful guide to gender-neutral job evaluation which, if
followed, would generally avoid any liability for equal pay claims:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/our-work-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-intro-guide-march-2014.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/4229d9vd
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall
basis of the difference in pay between people, whether skilled or
unskilled, factory floor, office or manager.
That is not a universally held view. So you would also abandon the minimum wage?
On 22/04/2025 20:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:38:27 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 12:36, The Todal wrote:
There was a McLaren push chair which was very light and portable, the
two sides collapsed together and it was about as easy to carry as an
umbrella when folded, though obviously a bit heavier. Other
manufacturers opted for more bulky luxurious looking pushchairs.
Yebbut... what about proper prams, which could not be reduced in size at >>> all?
I think it is fair to say that no-one, ever, tried to get one on a
Routemaster
bus. They were for perambulating, ostentatiously.
There was nothing ostentatious about it, small babies need to lie down, Maclaren folding buggies were not suitable until they were at least 6
months old.
Also they had a rack underneath, at least mine did, for all the shopping
- much done locally, didn't need a bus.
On 2025-04-18, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 16:30:33 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 15:33:50 BST, "Mark Goodge" >>><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 20:29:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the >>>>>>>> trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a >>>>>>>> disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using >>>>>>> the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop >>>>>> able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if >>>>>> all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way
to predict this.
The keys are readily available online. You don't have to provide any
evidence of being disabled in order to buy one.
But you do have to remember to carry it.
Put it on your keyring along with the others.
They tend to be annoyingly and unnecessarily large though. I can only
guess that this is to dissuade people who don't really need them from carrying one.
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly claims
to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years. Waiting for
the government's electoral support to implode, under the weight of its
own unsuccessful policies, and adverse external conditions.
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans
woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and
only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary >> meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
On 22/04/2025 23:10, miked wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 9:57:33 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a
Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from
sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Is that decided for all time? I ask cos there was dorrian which ruled
similarly,
For the purpose of interpreting one particular statute, the Equality
Act, it has been decided for all time.
The judges have not overruled the Gender Recognition Act. For the
purpose of that Act, a trans woman with a GR certificate is to be
regarded as a woman.
that was overturned by haldane now we have SC ruling overwise. Then the
EQC lady starts threatening the NHS and other public bodies if they dont
change their practices accordingly, but why should they if the whole
question will be challenged in court and overturned again in 2 years
time?
And who knew that toilet use would become such a political issue? Will
there be a whole load of cases reaching the courts with people suing
schools, hospitals & coleges etc who either do comply or dont comply in
some way?
My hunch is that the triumphalism of the Scottish campaigners and the mediocre children's author will give way to dismay and indignation when nothing changes, and trans people continue to have the same rights for
just about every circumstance in their lives.
Maybe someone could consider a new law. It might say that a female
writer of fiction is to be prohibited from posing as a male writer of
fiction and thereby misleading readers who prefer a safe space for their reading activities.
On 22/04/2025 11:54, Max Demian wrote:
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall
basis of the difference in pay between people, whether skilled or
unskilled, factory floor, office or manager.
It's at least arguable that is *should* be, but the pay rates in
question are generally set by negotiations between the employer (or >employers' representational group) and trade or craft unions.
On 23/04/2025 12:05, Max Demian wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2025 06:10, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:44, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was
quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically >>>>>> designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually existed.
Women's pensions (at least to start with) were for *single* women. In fact it
was informally known as the "spinster's pension". Married women benefited >>>> from their husband's pension, which was paid at an enhanced rate I think. >>>> Families, nuclear or otherwise, were irrelevant.
A married couple was the basis of the nuclear family (this is the 1940s we >>> afre peaking of) and policy was made to suit. The approach to Family Allowance
(the forerunner of Child Benefit) was founded on the premise that a man's >>> wages were enough to maintain his wife and one child. FA was paid only for >>> second and subsequent children.
What has that to do with the "spinster's pension", which women teachers relied
on, in the days when women teachers weren't allowed to marry (at least, and not
remain teaching)?
Wow, I recall married women teachers when I was in school in the 1950s and 1960s, you really are going back a long way!
On 2025-04-19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
They tend to be annoyingly and unnecessarily large though. I can only
guess that this is to dissuade people who don't really need them from
carrying one.
Maybe. I always assumed they were big to provide mechanical advantage
(for disabilities that affect wrist/hand strength).
This site also offers keys with small heads for "[a]ble fingered
people".
<https://www.radarkeys.org/genuine>
On 23 Apr 2025 at 11:01:44 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one issue.
She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly claims to be
vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years. Waiting for
the government's electoral support to implode, under the weight of its
own unsuccessful policies, and adverse external conditions.
That does seem to be how our "two party - one policy" system has
worked, at least since about 1949 to my knowledge. The alternative
party is usually brought in to do things unpopular with the incumbent
party's core supporters.
On 17/04/2025 16:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
If the changing room is a women's one provided by an employer under
the H&S regs, then, yes, it means precisely that. If it is a unisex
changing room then no. If it is a women's changing room provided by
an organisation other than for their employees - it depends! On an
impact assessment, probably.
Let’s fast-forward five to ten years, to a time when Putin’s rebuilt and
re-equipped forces roll across the DMZ with the object of reaching the
Polish border and squashing Ukraine out of existence, and ask yourself
which group of people will the Russian invaders rape and which they will >>> bayonet to death. Waving a GRC or its equivalent won’t help; ‘women’ with
beards and willies are likely to have an unwelcome experience of a terminal >>> kind, Russian policy being what it is, whereas biological women will
doubtless suffer as they always have, all this gender furore helping them >>> not at all. But that’s the real world for you, rather than the fantasy one
the Supreme Court has just had to dance around.
No, it's *your* fantasy world where most trans women apparently have
beards. Sadly, in the real world, trans women are also frequently the
victims of rape.
Do you have any stats for that last sentence? (FTAOD, I'm not
disagreeing with it. I am curious as to how "frequently" this happens
given that you've specifically mentioned "rape" rather than the more
general "sexual assault". I'm aware of the report "Gender Identity Disparities in Criminal Victimization: National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2017–2018" by the Williams Institute that found transgender
people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to
experience violent victimisation, (including rape), but that also
included sexual assault, aggravated and simple assault.)
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
I suspect accurate statistics about rape of trans people may well
be hard to come by due to, among other reasons, police deciding to
call it things other than "rape" if the victim isn't a cis woman.
On 23/04/2025 13:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I suspect accurate statistics about rape of trans people may well
be hard to come by due to, among other reasons, police deciding to
call it things other than "rape" if the victim isn't a cis woman.
Roughly 10% of rapes recorded by police have a male victim.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesappendixtables
On 23 Apr 2025 at 10:12:54 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the most >>>> crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy to say
that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned" or >>> "avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've been >>> excluded.
You continue to miss the very obvious point that trans people are under
no obligation to identify themselves as trans when entering any
building, any "women-only safe space".
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as
such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along
the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to
turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and
the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is
one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor
don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the
patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you
think of any wording for such a law?
Trans women are under a disciplinary obligation to not enter a space (such as a single sex women's changing room designated under The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992) legally designated for women only.
Agreed they are unlikely to be caught if they don't look male. (Bank robbers are unlikely to be caught if they wear masks and get away quickly. So what?) But if they look male and the employer starts a disciplinary action against them then they can be dismissed for gross misconduct on a finding on the balance of probability that they are male. This is quite fair, because if they
were actually female they would have a good defence that could be established with a medical report.
Equally, I suspect that a doctor who was male and told the patient they were female in a situation were this misled the patient[1] would be struck off the medical register for dishonesty.
You may be right that there is no part of the criminal law forcing transwomen to identify themselves. Though I suspect that if a trans woman was challenged by women using a same sex facility an argument might well result in a public order offence by one or other party.
On 23/04/2025 11:01, Pancho wrote:
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly claims
to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years. Waiting
for the government's electoral support to implode, under the weight of
its own unsuccessful policies, and adverse external conditions.
Miliband, perhaps? Corbyn?
They all do that; it's their job. But only that nice Mr Starmer managed
to increase Labour's share of the vote by the massive 1.5% necessary to secure its huge landslide victory last year. So, all due credit,
however confused he is about what a woman is.
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair discrimination.
On 2025-04-16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they
look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary
meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted
clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about
by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Well, Elon Musk says it's a slur. [eyeroll]
On 2025-04-23, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 13:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I suspect accurate statistics about rape of trans people may well
be hard to come by due to, among other reasons, police deciding to
call it things other than "rape" if the victim isn't a cis woman.
Roughly 10% of rapes recorded by police have a male victim.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesappendixtables
Yes, I know, but does that statistic accurately reflect reality?
On 2025-04-23, Simon Parker <simonparkerulm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2025 16:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-17, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
If the changing room is a women's one provided by an employer under
the H&S regs, then, yes, it means precisely that. If it is a unisex
changing room then no. If it is a women's changing room provided by
an organisation other than for their employees - it depends! On an
impact assessment, probably.
Let’s fast-forward five to ten years, to a time when Putin’s rebuilt and
re-equipped forces roll across the DMZ with the object of reaching the >>>> Polish border and squashing Ukraine out of existence, and ask yourself >>>> which group of people will the Russian invaders rape and which they will >>>> bayonet to death. Waving a GRC or its equivalent won’t help; ‘women’ with
beards and willies are likely to have an unwelcome experience of a terminal
kind, Russian policy being what it is, whereas biological women will
doubtless suffer as they always have, all this gender furore helping them >>>> not at all. But that’s the real world for you, rather than the fantasy one
the Supreme Court has just had to dance around.
No, it's *your* fantasy world where most trans women apparently have
beards. Sadly, in the real world, trans women are also frequently the
victims of rape.
Do you have any stats for that last sentence? (FTAOD, I'm not
disagreeing with it. I am curious as to how "frequently" this happens
given that you've specifically mentioned "rape" rather than the more
general "sexual assault". I'm aware of the report "Gender Identity
Disparities in Criminal Victimization: National Crime Victimization
Survey, 2017–2018" by the Williams Institute that found transgender
people are over four times more likely than cisgender people to
experience violent victimisation, (including rape), but that also
included sexual assault, aggravated and simple assault.)
I don't have any precise figures, no. I was responding to Spike's
apparent false assumption that trans women wouldn't get raped in
a "war crimes" situation, and his ironically incorrect assumptions
about what happens in the "real world".
I suspect accurate statistics about rape of trans people may well
be hard to come by due to, among other reasons, police deciding to
call it things other than "rape" if the victim isn't a cis woman.
But that's just a suspicion. The fact is that the stats don't seem
to be available, except, as you say, that we know that trans people
are *much* more likely to be victims of violent and sexual crime.
But somehow people want to ignore that and only talk about them as perpetrators of crime.
On 23/04/2025 12:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/04/2025 11:01, Pancho wrote:
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly
claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years. Waiting
for the government's electoral support to implode, under the weight
of its own unsuccessful policies, and adverse external conditions.
Miliband, perhaps? Corbyn?
They all do that; it's their job. But only that nice Mr Starmer
managed to increase Labour's share of the vote by the massive 1.5%
necessary to secure its huge landslide victory last year. So, all due
credit, however confused he is about what a woman is.
Everyone knew that the Tories under Rishi were no longer able to run a competent government. So naturally there was a surge of support for
Labour.
It hasn't taken long for Labour's electoral support to implode.
Maybe it really is possible for Reform UK to get a majority at the next election and to win every by-election till then.
On 23/04/2025 15:02, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-23, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 13:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I suspect accurate statistics about rape of trans people may well
be hard to come by due to, among other reasons, police deciding to
call it things other than "rape" if the victim isn't a cis woman.
Roughly 10% of rapes recorded by police have a male victim.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesappendixtables
Yes, I know, but does that statistic accurately reflect reality?
Obviously both will be under-reported, but what makes you think the
police are more likely to prefer other offences for rape of a male (where
the victim is able to confirm the nature of the penetration) ?
Op 23/04/2025 om 12:20 schreef Adam Funk:
On 2025-04-16, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 13:52:27 BST, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 11:37 16 Apr 2025, Jon Ribbens said:
On 2025-04-16, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
The direction of the result is not particularly surprising, given the >>>>>> court accepted submissions from multiple "Gender Critical"
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>
organisations and none at all from any trans people. But even so, it's >>>>>> pretty bonkers. Paragraphs 250 onwards, for example, say that a trans >>>>>> woman can claim direct discrimination against them as a woman *if and >>>>>> only if the defendant didn't realise they were trans* (i.e. if they >>>>>> look feminine enough).
Presumably the reverse also applies, that a cis
woman cannot claim direct discrimination if they look a bit butch.
Doesn't this court decision makes slurs like "cis" superfluous in
understanding the term "woman"?
No! It defines "woman" for the purposes of the Equality Act. The dictionary
meaning of the word in the vernacular is well outside their remit!
Anyway, "cis" isn't in any sense a "slur", just, at worst, an unwanted >>>> clarification.
Indeed - the false and nonsensical claim that cis is a slur is put about >>> by organised anti-trans activists as a frankly sinister attempt to stop
trans people even being allowed to talk in public about issues that
affect them.
Well, Elon Musk says it's a slur. [eyeroll]
This is "Reduction ad Hitlerum". Just because a billionaire ketamine
addict says that, it doesn't mean it's wrong.
On 23/04/2025 11:14, kat wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:38:27 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 12:36, The Todal wrote:
There was a McLaren push chair which was very light and portable, the >>>>> two sides collapsed together and it was about as easy to carry as an >>>>> umbrella when folded, though obviously a bit heavier. Other
manufacturers opted for more bulky luxurious looking pushchairs.
Yebbut... what about proper prams, which could not be reduced in size at >>>> all?
I think it is fair to say that no-one, ever, tried to get one on a Routemaster
bus. They were for perambulating, ostentatiously.
There was nothing ostentatious about it, small babies need to lie down,
Maclaren folding buggies were not suitable until they were at least 6 months old.
Also they had a rack underneath, at least mine did, for all the shopping - >> much done locally, didn't need a bus.
They used to have things called "carrycots". rectangular in shape, that could be
put on the back seat of a car, or put on a foldable trolley thing.
On 23/04/2025 15:28, The Todal wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/04/2025 11:01, Pancho wrote:
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly
claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years. Waiting
for the government's electoral support to implode, under the weight
of its own unsuccessful policies, and adverse external conditions.
Miliband, perhaps? Corbyn?
They all do that; it's their job. But only that nice Mr Starmer
managed to increase Labour's share of the vote by the massive 1.5%
necessary to secure its huge landslide victory last year. So, all
due credit, however confused he is about what a woman is.
Everyone knew that the Tories under Rishi were no longer able to run a
competent government. So naturally there was a surge of support for
Labour.
Once again, you miss the irony completely. Despite the Tory vote share collapsing by 20%, Labour did *not* experience what anyone would call a 'surge' of support, just a tiny gain of 1.5%. The party's vote share
was 33.7%, the lowest of any majority party on record ever.
That's why the election was dubbed the Loveless Landslide.
It hasn't taken long for Labour's electoral support to implode. Maybe
it really is possible for Reform UK to get a majority at the next
election and to win every by-election till then.
It is certainly time for a radical shake-up, but the current first past
the post system enormously favours the established parties or those
localised in certain parts of the nation.
Anyway, with Labour's majority being what it is, we'll have to wait till
2029 to find out.
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely.
Op 23/04/2025 om 12:18 schreef Roger Hayter:
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair
discrimination.
What if it is a hunter-gathererer kind of society? It was pretty common
that men hunted and women took care of the babies and foraged.
Or are hunter-gathererer communities to be banned?
On 21/04/2025 11:39, Max Demian wrote:
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are
going to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major
injustice that single women could retire, and receive their state
pension at 60, whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the
long known fact that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
Hmm, it seems the change from 65 to 60 was in 1940, because at that
time women who had paid NI were less likely to live to 65.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 15:09:52 BST, "Ottavio Caruso" <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 23/04/2025 om 12:18 schreef Roger Hayter:
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair
discrimination.
What if it is a hunter-gathererer kind of society? It was pretty common
that men hunted and women took care of the babies and foraged.
Or are hunter-gathererer communities to be banned?
Does anyone have the slightest idea how most hunter-gatherer societies operated?
On 23/04/2025 16:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/04/2025 15:28, The Todal wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/04/2025 11:01, Pancho wrote:
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly
claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years.
Waiting for the government's electoral support to implode, under
the weight of its own unsuccessful policies, and adverse external
conditions.
Miliband, perhaps? Corbyn?
They all do that; it's their job. But only that nice Mr Starmer
managed to increase Labour's share of the vote by the massive 1.5%
necessary to secure its huge landslide victory last year. So, all
due credit, however confused he is about what a woman is.
Everyone knew that the Tories under Rishi were no longer able to run
a competent government. So naturally there was a surge of support for
Labour.
Once again, you miss the irony completely. Despite the Tory vote
share collapsing by 20%, Labour did *not* experience what anyone would
call a 'surge' of support, just a tiny gain of 1.5%. The party's vote
share was 33.7%, the lowest of any majority party on record ever.
That's why the election was dubbed the Loveless Landslide.
I don't think it's unreasonable to call it a surge of support when
numerous constituencies changed from Tory to Labour.
But certainly, Labour got 40% of the vote share under Corbyn in 2017 and
only 33.7% under Starmer in 2024. Starmer's claim that he transformed
the Labour Party into an electable party by casting out all the witches,
is plainly a lie. He only won because the Tories were rubbish. Corbyn
would probably have won an even bigger majority.
It hasn't taken long for Labour's electoral support to implode. Maybe
it really is possible for Reform UK to get a majority at the next
election and to win every by-election till then.
It is certainly time for a radical shake-up, but the current first
past the post system enormously favours the established parties or
those localised in certain parts of the nation.
Anyway, with Labour's majority being what it is, we'll have to wait
till 2029 to find out.
Hey, do you remember back in the mists of time when the Tories won a
massive majority in the 2019 general election and I said that the Tories would immediately want to get rid of Boris and not let him lead them
into another election? And you said that I was wrong, and that by
winning such a large majority Boris had an impregnable position.
I think it is quite likely that Starmer will be replaced as Labour
leader before the next general election.
On 23/04/2025 16:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/04/2025 15:28, The Todal wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/04/2025 11:01, Pancho wrote:
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly
claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years. Waiting >>>>> for the government's electoral support to implode, under the weight
of its own unsuccessful policies, and adverse external conditions.
Miliband, perhaps? Corbyn?
They all do that; it's their job. But only that nice Mr Starmer
managed to increase Labour's share of the vote by the massive 1.5%
necessary to secure its huge landslide victory last year. So, all
due credit, however confused he is about what a woman is.
Everyone knew that the Tories under Rishi were no longer able to run a
competent government. So naturally there was a surge of support for
Labour.
Once again, you miss the irony completely. Despite the Tory vote share
collapsing by 20%, Labour did *not* experience what anyone would call a
'surge' of support, just a tiny gain of 1.5%. The party's vote share
was 33.7%, the lowest of any majority party on record ever.
That's why the election was dubbed the Loveless Landslide.
I don't think it's unreasonable to call it a surge of support when
numerous constituencies changed from Tory to Labour.
But certainly, Labour got 40% of the vote share under Corbyn in 2017 and
only 33.7% under Starmer in 2024. Starmer's claim that he transformed
the Labour Party into an electable party by casting out all the witches,
is plainly a lie. He only won because the Tories were rubbish. Corbyn
would probably have won an even bigger majority.
It hasn't taken long for Labour's electoral support to implode. Maybe
it really is possible for Reform UK to get a majority at the next
election and to win every by-election till then.
It is certainly time for a radical shake-up, but the current first past
the post system enormously favours the established parties or those
localised in certain parts of the nation.
Anyway, with Labour's majority being what it is, we'll have to wait till
2029 to find out.
Hey, do you remember back in the mists of time when the Tories won a
massive majority in the 2019 general election and I said that the Tories would immediately want to get rid of Boris and not let him lead them
into another election? And you said that I was wrong, and that by
winning such a large majority Boris had an impregnable position.
I think it is quite likely that Starmer will be replaced as Labour
leader before the next general election.
On 23/04/2025 10:51, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 10:12:54 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the most
crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy to say
that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned" or >>>> "avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've been
excluded.
You continue to miss the very obvious point that trans people are under
no obligation to identify themselves as trans when entering any
building, any "women-only safe space".
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as >>> such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along
the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to
turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and
the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is >>> one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor
don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the
patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you
think of any wording for such a law?
Trans women are under a disciplinary obligation to not enter a space (such as
a single sex women's changing room designated under The Workplace (Health, >> Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992) legally designated for women only.
Are you able to quote any official guidance to support that
interpretation? Why can't a trans woman cite the Gender Recognition Act
and say that legally she is entitled to use changing rooms that are designated for women?
The Supreme Court has not changed that part of the law. It has said that
in arranging a quota of women for a committee or board of governors,
trans women cannot be included. It would be wrong to extrapolate from that.
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way >>>>>>>>> I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always
use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pac the use of a
trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer
to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but
that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words
they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree with that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
angels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:29:51 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 16:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
I don't think "a vegetable" has ever had a precise meaning, scientific or >>> otherwise. So that option is freely available. Jackfruit is another example of
a fruit which is simultaneously a vegetable. They are intersecting sets, not
at all mutually exclusive.
Surely all plant fruits are vegetable? Fruit is a sub-set.
There is a difference between the things covered by the noun and by the adjective. And for special points, are fungi vegetable?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:2475598788.cdea61f4@uninhabited.net...
On 23 Apr 2025 at 15:09:52 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 23/04/2025 om 12:18 schreef Roger Hayter:
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair
discrimination.
What if it is a hunter-gathererer kind of society? It was pretty common
that men hunted and women took care of the babies and foraged.
Or are hunter-gathererer communities to be banned?
Does anyone have the slightest idea how most hunter-gatherer societies
operated?
Maybe the same a lions.
Where the blokes lay around in the sun all day, while the women did all the hunting and gathering.
bb
On 22/04/2025 18:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:29:51 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 16:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't think "a vegetable" has ever had a precise meaning, scientific or >>>> otherwise. So that option is freely available. Jackfruit is another example of
a fruit which is simultaneously a vegetable. They are intersecting sets, not
at all mutually exclusive.
Surely all plant fruits are vegetable? Fruit is a sub-set.
There is a difference between the things covered by the noun and by the
adjective. And for special points, are fungi vegetable?
My understanding is that they are not.
But...
On 22/04/2025 17:23, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 16:30:11 BST, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 22 Apr 2025 12:24:35 +0100, kat wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:53, Max Demian wrote:
On 20/04/2025 12:09, Jethro_uk wrote:It is a problem if the bus is laden with three buggies and a wheelchair >>>> user cannot get on.
On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 19:27:48 -0500, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 16:11, The Todal wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Hmmm...
I don't believe that I am without compassion, FWIW.
But I certainly don't have the same amount of it for just everybody >>>>>>> and anybody in every situation.
I have compassion for people who through disability are denied
participation in society. Have a wife who is housebound does rather >>>>>> make that enlightened self interest.
These people have now seen their hard-won provisions - the reasonable >>>>>> adjustments required by law - hijacked in order to provided "gender >>>>>> neutral and 'disabled'" facilities in the name of this frippery.
Much the same way that the moment bus companies were required to
provide wheelchair spaces, the travel-system yummy-mummy brigade
swooped in and made them their own.
Is that really a problem? The buses I use have one buggy space and one >>>>> wheelchair space, which, if unoccupied, can accommodate two buggies. >>>>>
Forget buggies. As I initially stated, these are "Travel systems". They
can't fold or be collapsed and you can only really get one in the space
properly. Two will slightly obstruct, and beyond that - well bad luck.
People should have considered their travel arrangements before becoming
cripples.
I remember push chairs of the last century; you could easily (FSVO
easy) hold
a baby in one arm, fold the pushchair with one hand, while keeping
hold of
parts of a toddler, and get the whole arrangement up a 45cm step, and
occupy 1
1/4 bus seats with everything if necessary. Are babies larger nowadays?
No, but they don't have the big pram and later the folding pushchair (
which for "easy" read "impossible" for you forgot the assorted bags) but
just the one system which converts from a small pram to a much better pushchair, using the same wheel base.
Op 23/04/2025 om 12:18 schreef Roger Hayter:
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair
discrimination.
What if it is a hunter-gathererer kind of society? It was pretty common
that men hunted and women took care of the babies and foraged.
Or are hunter-gathererer communities to be banned?
On 23 Apr 2025 at 12:13:20 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 19:23, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 18:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 17:54:58 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 22/04/2025 14:40, Mark Goodge wrote:
The EHRC publishes a useful guide to gender-neutral job evaluation >>>>>> which, if
followed, would generally avoid any liability for equal pay claims: >>>>>>
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/2022/our-
work-gender-neutral-job-evaluation-intro-guide-march-2014.pdf
or https://tinyurl.com/4229d9vd
Why not just rely on supply and demand? After all that's the overall >>>>> basis of the difference in pay between people, whether skilled or
unskilled, factory floor, office or manager.
That is not a universally held view. So you would also abandon the
minimum
wage?
Some statistics for NHS employees:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/gender-pay-gap-report-2023-for-nhs- >>> england/
quote
Structural aspects of NHS England’s workforce, along with those of the >>> broader NHS health and care sector, contribute to our gender pay gap. We >>> have many more women at lower pay bands than men. The percentage of
women sharply declines at higher pay bands compared to entry level
positions, although women are still in the majority. This is
unacceptable and we are determined to do better.
None if that implies that women are discriminated against, whether
systematically or unconsciously. Just that men and women have different
roles in society.
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair discrimination.
On 22/04/2025 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2025 06:10, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:44, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years
required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their
own was
quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically >>>>> designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it
actually existed.
Women's pensions (at least to start with) were for *single* women. In
fact it was informally known as the "spinster's pension". Married
women benefited from their husband's pension, which was paid at an
enhanced rate I think. Families, nuclear or otherwise, were irrelevant.
A married couple was the basis of the nuclear family (this is the
1940s we afre peaking of) and policy was made to suit. The approach to
Family Allowance (the forerunner of Child Benefit) was founded on the
premise that a man's wages were enough to maintain his wife and one
child. FA was paid only for second and subsequent children.
What has that to do with the "spinster's pension", which women teachers relied on, in the days when women teachers weren't allowed to marry (at least, and not remain teaching)?
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely.
On 23/04/2025 12:05, Max Demian wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2025 06:10, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:44, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
The number of single women with full contributions (many more
years required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their
own was
quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system
basically
designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it
actually existed.
Women's pensions (at least to start with) were for *single* women.
In fact it was informally known as the "spinster's pension". Married
women benefited from their husband's pension, which was paid at an
enhanced rate I think. Families, nuclear or otherwise, were irrelevant.
A married couple was the basis of the nuclear family (this is the
1940s we afre peaking of) and policy was made to suit. The approach
to Family Allowance (the forerunner of Child Benefit) was founded on
the premise that a man's wages were enough to maintain his wife and
one child. FA was paid only for second and subsequent children.
What has that to do with the "spinster's pension", which women
teachers relied on, in the days when women teachers weren't allowed to
marry (at least, and not remain teaching)?
Wow, I recall married women teachers when I was in school in the 1950s
and 1960s, you really are going back a long way!
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely.
And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a presumed parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them doing it is straight Daily Mail nonsense.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:00:36 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 18:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:29:51 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 16:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't think "a vegetable" has ever had a precise meaning, scientific or >>>>> otherwise. So that option is freely available. Jackfruit is another example of
a fruit which is simultaneously a vegetable. They are intersecting sets, not
at all mutually exclusive.
Surely all plant fruits are vegetable? Fruit is a sub-set.
There is a difference between the things covered by the noun and by the
adjective. And for special points, are fungi vegetable?
My understanding is that they are not.
But...
I think a chef is entitled to call them vegetables on his menu if he wants to,
but scientifically they are certainly not plants. Sort of illustrates my point
about the futility of debating whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable.
On 23/04/2025 16:24, The Todal wrote:
On 23/04/2025 16:03, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/04/2025 15:28, The Todal wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:28, Norman Wells wrote:
On 23/04/2025 11:01, Pancho wrote:
On 4/23/25 10:00, The Todal wrote:
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this
one issue. She's been underperforming for many months but
suddenly claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
Remind me, which opposition leader underperformed for years.
Waiting for the government's electoral support to implode, under
the weight of its own unsuccessful policies, and adverse
external conditions.
Miliband, perhaps? Corbyn?
They all do that; it's their job. But only that nice Mr Starmer
managed to increase Labour's share of the vote by the massive
1.5% necessary to secure its huge landslide victory last year.
So, all due credit, however confused he is about what a woman is.
Everyone knew that the Tories under Rishi were no longer able to
run a competent government. So naturally there was a surge of
support for Labour.
Once again, you miss the irony completely. Despite the Tory vote
share collapsing by 20%, Labour did *not* experience what anyone
would call a 'surge' of support, just a tiny gain of 1.5%. The
party's vote share was 33.7%, the lowest of any majority party on
record ever.
That's why the election was dubbed the Loveless Landslide.
I don't think it's unreasonable to call it a surge of support when
numerous constituencies changed from Tory to Labour.
But certainly, Labour got 40% of the vote share under Corbyn in 2017
and only 33.7% under Starmer in 2024. Starmer's claim that he
transformed the Labour Party into an electable party by casting out
all the witches, is plainly a lie. He only won because the Tories
were rubbish. Corbyn would probably have won an even bigger
majority.
It hasn't taken long for Labour's electoral support to implode.
Maybe it really is possible for Reform UK to get a majority at the
next election and to win every by-election till then.
It is certainly time for a radical shake-up, but the current first
past the post system enormously favours the established parties or
those localised in certain parts of the nation.
Anyway, with Labour's majority being what it is, we'll have to wait
till 2029 to find out.
Hey, do you remember back in the mists of time when the Tories won a
massive majority in the 2019 general election and I said that the
Tories would immediately want to get rid of Boris and not let him
lead them into another election? And you said that I was wrong, and
that by winning such a large majority Boris had an impregnable
position.
I think it is quite likely that Starmer will be replaced as Labour
leader before the next general election.
What Labourgate scandal is he going to be involved in then? He seems
too dull for anything interesting.
I can't imagine him having an affair like that exciting John Major
for example.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely.
And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a presumed parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them doing it is straight Daily Mail nonsense.
On 2025-04-19, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-18, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 16:30:33 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 18 Apr 2025 at 15:33:50 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 17 Apr 2025 20:29:09 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>> On 17 Apr 2025 at 20:07:45 BST, "Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Andy Burns wrote:
the one person who doesn't need to use their perception, is the >>>>>>>>> trans person, if (and I accept it's not always the case) there is a >>>>>>>>> disabled loo, use that instead?
So they'll get harangued instead for being a non-disabled person using >>>>>>>> the disabled facilities. A brilliant solution!
Unlike disabled parking spaces, I don't think there's anything to stop >>>>>>> able bodied people using disabled loos, I have no qualms using them if >>>>>>> all others are busy.
Some need keys. I really don't know if there is some systematic way >>>>>> to predict this.
The keys are readily available online. You don't have to provide any >>>>> evidence of being disabled in order to buy one.
But you do have to remember to carry it.
Put it on your keyring along with the others.
They tend to be annoyingly and unnecessarily large though. I can only
guess that this is to dissuade people who don't really need them from
carrying one.
Maybe. I always assumed they were big to provide mechanical advantage
(for disabilities that affect wrist/hand strength).
This site also offers keys with small heads for "[a]ble fingered
people".
<https://www.radarkeys.org/genuine>
On 22/04/2025 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan
to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the
most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to
encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather
similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy
to say that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned"
or "avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be
granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've
been
excluded.
You continue to miss the very obvious point that trans people are under
no obligation to identify themselves as trans when entering any
building, any "women-only safe space".
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along
the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to
turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and
the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is
one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor
don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the
patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you
think of any wording for such a law?
we can't peek into their underpants so let's assume that they might
be predatory sex offenders.
The fact that a persons sexuality might not be immediately apparent is an
entirely different question. The exact same potentially applies to
many men and women. And so the problem you cite, this inability to peek
into people's underpants, has always applied. Just so long as there have
been exclusively male and female toilets and other facilities.
Or were you unaware of this fact ?
But that is my point. People are deeply embarrassed if they accidentally wander into the wrong toilets in a pub, hotel, motorway service station.
But actually they don't glare suspiciously at other people whose dress
sense or hairstyle might suggest they are the "wrong" sex to use the facilities. They don't give a damn. Keeping trans people out of toilets
is no more likely to succeed than keeping Romanian people out of toilets.
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
On 17/04/2025 06:03, Spike wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Wed, 16 Apr 2025 17:21:23 -0500, JNugent wrote:
Did "preferred pronouns" ever really matter?
I think they do when you are either expected to use ones which don't
seem
appropriate (e.g. calling a man "she").
However much more insidious is forcing people to "choose" pronouns,
as is
forcing them to subscribe to a particular philosophical view - which is >>>> contrary to the notion of freedom of belief. Which by definition
encompasses freedom from belief too.
There are plenty of *legal* cases where demanding an answer to a
question
is compelled speech.
"So when did you stop beating your wife ?"
The following article appeared in the Telegraph in 2022, unfortunately I >>> don’t have a link for it. It discusses some Whitehall department’s
approach
to gender identity and pronouns:
Quote
Investigation into the Civil Service’s HR culture reveals an emphasis on >>> identity politics and a drive to regulate language
THE Civil Service recognises dozens of genders, whistleblowers inside
Whitehall have told The Daily Telegraph.
An investigation by this newspaper into HR culture inside central
government reveals that identity politics has infected all levels of the >>> running of the country.
One mandarin was told in their performance review to spend 5 per cent of >>> their corporate working time in a “non-binary network”, with a
suggestion
that they should attend a “gender-nonconforming book club”.
The Telegraph found major government departments organising events and
workshops, as well as issuing language guidance, including:
• a World Afro Day to raise the problem of “hair bias against Afro hair”
• a ban on the use of the word “crazy” because of the offence to
those with
mental health problems
• advice to no longer use terms such as “mother”, “father” and >>> “ladies and
gentlemen” in documents and emails
• Trans Day of Remembrance for victims of transgender violence and a >>> Transgender Day of Visibility to celebrate being transgender
• Bi-visibility day to raise awareness of “bisexual and biromantic >>> erasure”
The number of gender identities recognised in Whitehall is not disclosed >>> publicly but a mandarin, speaking on condition of anonymity, said
that at
meetings it was explained that personnel departments accepted the
legitimate use of more than 100 genders by civil servants. Genders are
noted on official HR documents for personnel records. The genders are
also
used in networking and in meetings where personal pronouns are being
discussed.
A source said: “My colleagues and I were informed by HR that there
are over
100 recognised gender identities in the Civil Service as staff are
permitted to self-identify their gender without any medical input and
regardless of biological sex.
“This came as quite a surprise to me as I’d always thought there were >>> only
two biological sexes.”
The Cabinet Office said: “Civil service HR does not centrally collect
data
on the gender of civil servants.”
But a source said: “There is no list of genders that departments are
required to recognise. While there is not an infinite number of genders, >>> there is no number limit on how many gender identities are recognised.” >>>
Unquote
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
On 2025-04-23, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 13:51, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I suspect accurate statistics about rape of trans people may well
be hard to come by due to, among other reasons, police deciding to
call it things other than "rape" if the victim isn't a cis woman.
Roughly 10% of rapes recorded by police have a male victim.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesappendixtables
Yes, I know, but does that statistic accurately reflect reality?
On 23/04/2025 15:09, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Op 23/04/2025 om 12:18 schreef Roger Hayter:
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair
discrimination.
What if it is a hunter-gathererer kind of society? It was pretty common that men
hunted and women took care of the babies and foraged.
Or are hunter-gathererer communities to be banned?
I don't see the need to go back to pre-history to recognise the efficiency of recent
arrangements with regard to the raising of children.
On 20:31 22 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way >>>>>>>>>> I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense. >>>>>>>>>
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always >>>>>>>>> use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a
trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer >>>>>>>> to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but
that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words
they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree with that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
angels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
It would be fascinating to understand the psychology of Labour MPs and
others who got drawn into supporting some of the demands of extreme
trans activists.
It's one thing to ensure a minority group does not face undue
discrimination. But it's another to award it specific privileges at the expense of half the population and then to permit these privileges to
be repeatedly misused (such as permitting mentally disturbed men into
women's toilets).
What were our representatives thinking? How did they lose almost all perspective? What aberrant psychology was at work? How did such bigotry possess them?
We generally hold that everyone has some rights, even murderers and child-abusers, but upholding such minority rights is quite different
than requiring the public to actively support wrong-headed zealots, as happened here.
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as >such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along
the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to
turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and
the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is
one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor
don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the
patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you
think of any wording for such a law?
But that is my point. People are deeply embarrassed if they accidentally >wander into the wrong toilets in a pub, hotel, motorway service station.
But actually they don't glare suspiciously at other people whose dress
sense or hairstyle might suggest they are the "wrong" sex to use the >facilities. They don't give a damn. Keeping trans people out of toilets
is no more likely to succeed than keeping Romanian people out of toilets.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:00:36 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
There is a difference between the things covered by the noun and by the
adjective. And for special points, are fungi vegetable?
My understanding is that they are not.
But...
I think a chef is entitled to call them vegetables on his menu if he wants to, >but scientifically they are certainly not plants. Sort of illustrates my point >about the futility of debating whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable.
I can't imagine him having an affair like that exciting John Major for example.
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to >>>>> "The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us >>>>> as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely.
And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a presumed >> parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them doing it is >> straight Daily Mail nonsense.
Er, not me.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a presumed >>> parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them doing it is >>> straight Daily Mail nonsense.
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to >>>>>> "The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us >>>>>> as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and >>>>> refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely. >>>
Er, not me.
Oh sorry, but you seemed to be supporting JNugent's disapproval...
On 23/04/2025 12:24, Nick Finnigan wrote:
On 21/04/2025 11:39, Max Demian wrote:
I'm awaiting the massive compensation that woman (as a whole) are going
to pay to men (as a whole) to compensate us for the major injustice that >>> single women could retire, and receive their state pension at 60,
whereas men had to wait until they were 65, despite the long known fact
that women have a longer life expectancy than men.
Hmm, it seems the change from 65 to 60 was in 1940, because at that
time women who had paid NI were less likely to live to 65.
It's been known that women have a longer life expectancy than men for donkey's years. I certainly remember it being remarked upon in the 60s.
On 23/04/2025 04:12, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan
to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the
most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to
encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather
similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy
to say that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned"
or "avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be
granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've
been
excluded.
You continue to miss the very obvious point that trans people are under
no obligation to identify themselves as trans when entering any
building, any "women-only safe space".
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as
such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along
the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to
turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and
the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is
one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor
don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the
patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you
think of any wording for such a law?
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or
duty of care?>
we can't peek into their underpants so let's assume that they might
be predatory sex offenders.
The fact that a persons sexuality might not be immediately apparent is an >>> entirely different question. The exact same potentially applies to
many men and women. And so the problem you cite, this inability to peek
into people's underpants, has always applied. Just so long as there have >>> been exclusively male and female toilets and other facilities.
Or were you unaware of this fact ?
But that is my point. People are deeply embarrassed if they accidentally
wander into the wrong toilets in a pub, hotel, motorway service station.
But actually they don't glare suspiciously at other people whose dress
sense or hairstyle might suggest they are the "wrong" sex to use the
facilities. They don't give a damn. Keeping trans people out of toilets
is no more likely to succeed than keeping Romanian people out of toilets.
Some people may be deeply embarrassed, I'd think most are merely
slightly embarrassed. I made that same mistake a few months ago at the
local Labour club. It was of no consequence. I wasn't the first it had happened to.
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent (or only one who matters).
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a presumed >>> parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them doing it is >>> straight Daily Mail nonsense.
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to >>>>>> "The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us >>>>>> as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and >>>>> refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely. >>>
Er, not me.
Oh sorry, but you seemed to be supporting JNugent's disapproval.
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or
duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:08:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 04:12, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan
to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the >>>>> most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to
encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather >>>>> similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy >>>>> to say that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned"
or "avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be >>>> granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've >>>> been
excluded.
You continue to miss the very obvious point that trans people are under
no obligation to identify themselves as trans when entering any
building, any "women-only safe space".
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as >>> such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along
the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to
turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and
the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is >>> one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor
don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the
patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you
think of any wording for such a law?
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or
duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault. Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts. I am pretty sure the biological sex of the attendant would be a material fact if it had been specifically sought. Especially if the patient was a victim of sexual assault, a religious woman, or a man in various roles in Islam or Judaism who has to avoid inessential contact with the opposite sex. But I think it would still be assault if the patient had merely expressed a strong preference *and was then misled*. Even if it is not an assault (and I suspect a court would find assault proven) I am
sure that the GMC would regard it as gross professional misconduct.
Some people may be deeply embarrassed, I'd think most are merelywe can't peek into their underpants so let's assume that they might
be predatory sex offenders.
The fact that a persons sexuality might not be immediately apparent is an >>>> entirely different question. The exact same potentially applies to
many men and women. And so the problem you cite, this inability to peek >>>> into people's underpants, has always applied. Just so long as there have >>>> been exclusively male and female toilets and other facilities.
Or were you unaware of this fact ?
But that is my point. People are deeply embarrassed if they accidentally >>> wander into the wrong toilets in a pub, hotel, motorway service station. >>> But actually they don't glare suspiciously at other people whose dress
sense or hairstyle might suggest they are the "wrong" sex to use the
facilities. They don't give a damn. Keeping trans people out of toilets
is no more likely to succeed than keeping Romanian people out of toilets. >>
slightly embarrassed. I made that same mistake a few months ago at the
local Labour club. It was of no consequence. I wasn't the first it had
happened to.
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or >>> duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend
immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts.
<snip>
On 20:31 22 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way >>>>>>>>>> I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense. >>>>>>>>>
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always >>>>>>>>> use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a
trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer >>>>>>>> to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but
that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words
they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree with that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
angels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
It would be fascinating to understand the psychology of Labour MPs and
others who got drawn into supporting some of the demands of extreme
trans activists.
It's one thing to ensure a minority group does not face undue
discrimination. But it's another to award it specific privileges at the expense of half the population and then to permit these privileges to
be repeatedly misused (such as permitting mentally disturbed men into
women's toilets).
What were our representatives thinking? How did they lose almost all perspective? What aberrant psychology was at work? How did such bigotry possess them?
We generally hold that everyone has some rights, even murderers and child-abusers, but upholding such minority rights is quite different
than requiring the public to actively support wrong-headed zealots, as happened here.
On 23/04/2025 16:33, Roger Hayter wrote:Whether consent is explicit or implied has got nothing to do with whether it
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:08:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 04:12, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan >>>>>> to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the >>>>>> most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to >>>>>> encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather >>>>>> similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy >>>>>> to say that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned" >>>>> or "avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be >>>>> granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've >>>>> been
excluded.
You continue to miss the very obvious point that trans people are under >>>> no obligation to identify themselves as trans when entering any
building, any "women-only safe space".
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as >>>> such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along >>>> the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to >>>> turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and >>>> the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is >>>> one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor >>>> don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the
patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you >>>> think of any wording for such a law?
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or >>> duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault. Consent is only valid when
adequately informed of material facts. I am pretty sure the biological sex of
the attendant would be a material fact if it had been specifically sought. >> Especially if the patient was a victim of sexual assault, a religious woman, >> or a man in various roles in Islam or Judaism who has to avoid inessential >> contact with the opposite sex. But I think it would still be assault if the >> patient had merely expressed a strong preference *and was then misled*. Even >> if it is not an assault (and I suspect a court would find assault proven) I am
sure that the GMC would regard it as gross professional misconduct.
implied consent.
snip
On 24 Apr 2025 at 07:54:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or >>>> duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must
intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend
immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts.
<snip>
Technically I suppose it's battery - but you knew that, didn't you? We are talking about health care, not travelling on the underground.
On 24/04/2025 09:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 07:54:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of
contract or
duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must
intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend
immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts.
<snip>
Technically I suppose it's battery - but you knew that, didn't you? We
are
talking about health care, not travelling on the underground.
Again, not so. According to the CPS:
"Battery is committed by the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to another person. ... Where battery is selected it
should be charged as “assault by beating”: DPP v Taylor and Little
[1992] Q.B. 645."
It always pays to look up things you don't know.
On 23/04/2025 18:08, Pamela wrote:
On 20:31 22 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way >>>>>>>>>>> I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense. >>>>>>>>>>
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always >>>>>>>>>> use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a >>>>>>>>> trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer >>>>>>>>> to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but >>>>>> that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words
they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree with that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
angels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
It would be fascinating to understand the psychology of Labour MPs and
others who got drawn into supporting some of the demands of extreme
trans activists.
Can you name these delinquent MPs and summarise their views? Only then
might we try to understand the "psychology".
Or have you perhaps exaggerated a tad?
The Gender Recognition Act states the position very clearly.
quote
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).
unquote
I can understand why people think that is an unreasonable law, but it is
the law. Pretending that it does not exist or that it can be disregarded because of public opinion does not seem a viable way forward.
What really surprised me was when the Tory government indicated that
they intended to change the law so that people could self-declare that
they have changed gender and not require any medical proof. I thought
that was a step too far. Can anyone "understand the psychology" of the
Tory leadership at that point? Was it thought to be an easy vote-winner?
On 23/04/2025 18:08, Pamela wrote:
On 20:31 22 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way >>>>>>>>>>> I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense. >>>>>>>>>>
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always >>>>>>>>>> use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a >>>>>>>>> trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer >>>>>>>>> to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but >>>>>> that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words
they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree with that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
angels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
It would be fascinating to understand the psychology of Labour MPs and
others who got drawn into supporting some of the demands of extreme
trans activists.
Can you name these delinquent MPs and summarise their views? Only then
might we try to understand the "psychology".
Or have you perhaps exaggerated a tad?
The Gender Recognition Act states the position very clearly.
quote
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).
unquote
I can understand why people think that is an unreasonable law, but it is
the law. Pretending that it does not exist or that it can be disregarded because of public opinion does not seem a viable way forward.
snip
On 24 Apr 2025 at 09:33:27 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 18:08, Pamela wrote:
On 20:31 22 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way >>>>>>>>>>>> I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense. >>>>>>>>>>>
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always >>>>>>>>>>> use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a >>>>>>>>>> trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer >>>>>>>>>> to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile >>>>>>>>> claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no >>>>>>>>> language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word >>>>>> to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but >>>>>>> that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words
they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree with that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans- >>>>> woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
angels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
It would be fascinating to understand the psychology of Labour MPs and
others who got drawn into supporting some of the demands of extreme
trans activists.
Can you name these delinquent MPs and summarise their views? Only then
might we try to understand the "psychology".
Or have you perhaps exaggerated a tad?
The Gender Recognition Act states the position very clearly.
quote
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).
unquote
I can understand why people think that is an unreasonable law, but it is
the law. Pretending that it does not exist or that it can be disregarded
because of public opinion does not seem a viable way forward.
That is only part of the law. It is in fact section 9.1 of the GRA. Section 9.3 says:
quote
Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment
or any subordinate legislation.
unquote
Which substantially dilutes the "all purposes" of the section 9.1 you have quoted. In particular, the Supreme Court has just found that someone with a GRC does *not* become the new gender for the purpose of sex discrimination under the Equality Act.
What this means is old ground in the rest of the thread. Suffice it to say that concretely it means that someone with a female GRC does *not* have all the rights of a born woman.
Sorry for what appears to be grandparent-explaining, but you appeared to be saying something different.
On 24/04/2025 09:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 07:54:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or >>>>> duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must
intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend
immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts.
<snip>
Technically I suppose it's battery - but you knew that, didn't you? We are >> talking about health care, not travelling on the underground.
Again, not so. According to the CPS:
"Battery is committed by the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to another person. ... Where battery is selected it
should be charged as “assault by beating”: DPP v Taylor and Little
[1992] Q.B. 645."
It always pays to look up things you don't know.
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
On 22/04/2025 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I >>>>>>>>>> understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always >>>>>>>>> use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a
trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer to >>>>>>>> things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but
that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to coerce
me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words they have
made up for their own purposes).
I agree wth that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people who
are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
anagels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
He's slippery. His spokesman might say that he no longer believes that
trans women can be called women, but Starmer himself keeps at a distance
so that these opinions can be deniable.
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one issue.
She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
On 23/04/2025 16:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a presumed >>>> parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them doing it is
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to >>>>>>> "The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us >>>>>>> as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was >>>>>>> addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and >>>>>> refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely. >>>>
straight Daily Mail nonsense.
Er, not me.
Oh sorry, but you seemed to be supporting JNugent's disapproval...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent (or only one who matters).
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
That is clearly not the case, for example accidental jostling. And
deliberate touching to attract someone's attention is pemitted provided
you touch the person on the shoulder, hand, or perhaps some other
places. I don't think that there is an exhaustive list.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:00:36 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 18:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Apr 2025 at 20:29:51 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/2025 16:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
I don't think "a vegetable" has ever had a precise meaning, scientific or >>>>> otherwise. So that option is freely available. Jackfruit is another example of
a fruit which is simultaneously a vegetable. They are intersecting sets, not
at all mutually exclusive.
Surely all plant fruits are vegetable? Fruit is a sub-set.
There is a difference between the things covered by the noun and by the
adjective. And for special points, are fungi vegetable?
My understanding is that they are not.
But...
I think a chef is entitled to call them vegetables on his menu if he wants to,
but scientifically they are certainly not plants. Sort of illustrates my point
about the futility of debating whether tomatoes are a fruit or a vegetable.
On 23/04/2025 06:29, kat wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:05, Max Demian wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:35, JNugent wrote:
On 22/04/2025 06:10, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:44, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 06:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
The number of single women with full contributions (many more years required
in the past) who could actually gain from retiring early on their own was
quite small - a fortunate minority benefitting from a system basically >>>>>>> designed for men.
I'd say it was designed for the average nuclear family as it actually >>>>>> existed.
Women's pensions (at least to start with) were for *single* women. In fact
it was informally known as the "spinster's pension". Married women
benefited from their husband's pension, which was paid at an enhanced rate
I think. Families, nuclear or otherwise, were irrelevant.
A married couple was the basis of the nuclear family (this is the 1940s we >>>> afre peaking of) and policy was made to suit. The approach to Family
Allowance (the forerunner of Child Benefit) was founded on the premise that
a man's wages were enough to maintain his wife and one child. FA was paid >>>> only for second and subsequent children.
What has that to do with the "spinster's pension", which women teachers
relied on, in the days when women teachers weren't allowed to marry (at
least, and not remain teaching)?
Wow, I recall married women teachers when I was in school in the 1950s and >> 1960s, you really are going back a long way!
Same here. Mrs Murray, Mrs Davis are two I can remember. There were also a lot
of "Misses" (and few Sisters (of Mercy). At my grammar school, there was only one female teacher, and that only in my first year there - Miss O'Shaugnessy, who taught English and Music. She introduced us to Shakespeare and Louis Armstrong, but the school had moved premises from the inner city to the far leafy suburbs and after that one year, she took a post with less travelling involved.
I recall, though, that in the TV soap "Emergency Ward 10", there were stories about nurses having to leave their jobs if married.
On 24 Apr 2025 at 09:35:31 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 09:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 07:54:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that >>>>>> breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or >>>>>> duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must
intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend
immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts.
<snip>
Technically I suppose it's battery - but you knew that, didn't you? We are >>> talking about health care, not travelling on the underground.
Again, not so. According to the CPS:
"Battery is committed by the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to another person. ... Where battery is selected it
should be charged as “assault by beating”: DPP v Taylor and Little
[1992] Q.B. 645."
It always pays to look up things you don't know.
Touching someone in the context of health care is unlawful force if not done with informed consent. This is well established.
On 24 Apr 2025 at 11:22:09 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
That is clearly not the case, for example accidental jostling. And
deliberate touching to attract someone's attention is pemitted provided
you touch the person on the shoulder, hand, or perhaps some other
places. I don't think that there is an exhaustive list.
Sorry I left out the context in that post which was health care or examination. (And of course accidental touching is unlikely to be any kind of offence.)
On 24/04/2025 09:35, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/04/2025 09:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 07:54:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that >>>>>> breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of
contract or
duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must
intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend
immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts.
<snip>
Technically I suppose it's battery - but you knew that, didn't you?
We are
talking about health care, not travelling on the underground.
Again, not so. According to the CPS:
"Battery is committed by the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to another person. ... Where battery is selected it
should be charged as “assault by beating”: DPP v Taylor and Little
[1992] Q.B. 645."
It always pays to look up things you don't know.
Norman, have you looked this one up?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jan/12/surgeon-burned-initials- livers-two-patients-fined-simon-bramhall-assault-transplant
I'm curious as to where in the new grand scheme of things trans-women who >have fully undergone gender reassignment surgery stand now. They look
exactly like a woman but are genetically male. I knew someone who did just >that and famously got the better of Germaine Greer after the latter
"Outed" her rather viciously years later (becoming a woman is not a
fantastic career move for a male scientist but they did it anyway).
On 24/04/2025 10:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 09:35:31 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 09:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 07:54:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that >>>>>>> breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or
duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must
intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend
immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts.
<snip>
Technically I suppose it's battery - but you knew that, didn't you? We are >>>> talking about health care, not travelling on the underground.
Again, not so. According to the CPS:
"Battery is committed by the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to another person. ... Where battery is selected it
should be charged as “assault by beating”: DPP v Taylor and Little
[1992] Q.B. 645."
It always pays to look up things you don't know.
Touching someone in the context of health care is unlawful force if not done >> with informed consent. This is well established.
Then you'll be able to tell us where it is well established and give us chapter and verse.
If you have to look it up, so be it.
On 23/04/2025 23:08, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2025 16:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school
addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one >>>>>>>> of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal >>>>>>>> parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the >>>>>>>> children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was >>>>>>>> addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and >>>>>>> refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point
entirely.
And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a
presumed
parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them
doing it is
straight Daily Mail nonsense.
Er, not me.
Oh sorry, but you seemed to be supporting JNugent's disapproval...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one
parent (or only one who matters).
It might depend on the information the school has about parents. Does
it have one, or both, as points of contact?
Not something I would have thought about until I saw it suggested that,
if a family plans to take children put of school for a holiday, make
sure only one parent is listed - or both get fined.
On 23/04/2025 18:08, Pamela wrote:
On 20:31 22 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the >>>>>>>>>>> way I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic >>>>>>>>>>> sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and
always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pac the use of a
trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore
refer to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special
word to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist,
but that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words
they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree with that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term
"trans- woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is
sufficient to differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with
the angels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
It would be fascinating to understand the psychology of Labour MPs
and others who got drawn into supporting some of the demands of
extreme trans activists.
Can you name these delinquent MPs and summarise their views? Only
then might we try to understand the "psychology".
On 24 Apr 2025 at 12:43:48 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 10:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 09:35:31 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 24/04/2025 09:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 07:54:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>>
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that >>>>>>>> breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or
duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must
intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend
immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts. >>>>>><snip>
Technically I suppose it's battery - but you knew that, didn't you? We are
talking about health care, not travelling on the underground.
Again, not so. According to the CPS:
"Battery is committed by the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to another person. ... Where battery is selected it
should be charged as “assault by beating”: DPP v Taylor and Little >>>> [1992] Q.B. 645."
It always pays to look up things you don't know.
Touching someone in the context of health care is unlawful force if not done
with informed consent. This is well established.
Then you'll be able to tell us where it is well established and give us
chapter and verse.
If you have to look it up, so be it.
Indeed, I would be able to. But I don't believe the point about informed consent is contentious at all. Whether a request for a female doctor can appropriately met by a transwoman without her saying so is the question I don't have a definite legal answer to. Although I'm pretty sure what the GMC would say, its decision could be appealed to the High Court. Whether anyone is
clever enough to parse the SC decision and give a confident answer I don't know.
But I'm not going to waste my time dragging up a ton of consent case.
On 09:33 24 Apr 2025, The Todal said:I was assuming you had in mind "demands of extreme trans activists" but actually you have named people who have made perfectly reasonable
On 23/04/2025 18:08, Pamela wrote:
It would be fascinating to understand the psychology of Labour MPs
and others who got drawn into supporting some of the demands of
extreme trans activists.
Can you name these delinquent MPs and summarise their views? Only
then might we try to understand the "psychology".
To answer your request ... Keir Starmer is one such MP when he gave a
very different definition of "woman" to that of the recent SC and also disagreed bitterly with Rosie Duffield over women and cervixes. Then
there are those Labour MPs who voted against using Section 35 to halt
the Scottish government's unconstitutional gender law. And not
forgetting the current "pro-trans plotters" which include Chris Bryant
and Angela Eagle. Many others too.
You would already have known those, so I'm not sure of the purpose in
asking for names.
On 24/04/2025 14:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
But I'm not going to waste my time dragging up a ton of consent case.
It is of course settled law that if a doctor carries out an unnecessary breast or gynae examination of a patient that will amount to assault -
even if the patient has consented in the mistaken belief that surely
that doctor must have a reason for doing it.
Rosie Duffield is probably seen as a heroine by some people but actually
she has a naive and ill-informed attitude to trans issues.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 18:18:37 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2475598788.cdea61f4@uninhabited.net...
On 23 Apr 2025 at 15:09:52 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 23/04/2025 om 12:18 schreef Roger Hayter:
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair
discrimination.
What if it is a hunter-gathererer kind of society? It was pretty common >>>> that men hunted and women took care of the babies and foraged.
Or are hunter-gathererer communities to be banned?
Does anyone have the slightest idea how most hunter-gatherer societies
operated?
Maybe the same a lions.
Where the blokes lay around in the sun all day, while the women did all the >> hunting and gathering.
bb
That's certainly how farming works in some parts of Africa. Although the men do use their time to discuss important things, I believe.
We don't live in a hunter-gatherer society;
If we did, making the women stay at home would still be sex discrimination,
On 24/04/2025 14:27, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2025 14:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
But I'm not going to waste my time dragging up a ton of consent case.
It is of course settled law that if a doctor carries out an
unnecessary breast or gynae examination of a patient that will amount
to assault - even if the patient has consented in the mistaken belief
that surely that doctor must have a reason for doing it.
Mr Hayter won't support his contentions with any reliable references.
Will you?
If you know, what definition of 'assault' is being used there if not the
CPS one?
On 24/04/2025 14:25, The Todal wrote:
Rosie Duffield is probably seen as a heroine by some people but
actually she has a naive and ill-informed attitude to trans issues.
She disagrees with you, doesn't she? I can tell from your personal ad
homs.
Op 23/04/2025 om 19:09 schreef Roger Hayter:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 18:18:37 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>> "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:2475598788.cdea61f4@uninhabited.net...
On 23 Apr 2025 at 15:09:52 BST, "Ottavio Caruso"
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
Op 23/04/2025 om 12:18 schreef Roger Hayter:
"Men and women have different roles in society" is blatant unfair
discrimination.
What if it is a hunter-gathererer kind of society? It was pretty common >>>>> that men hunted and women took care of the babies and foraged.
Or are hunter-gathererer communities to be banned?
Does anyone have the slightest idea how most hunter-gatherer societies >>>> operated?
Maybe the same a lions.
Where the blokes lay around in the sun all day, while the women did
all the hunting and gathering.
bb
That's certainly how farming works in some parts of Africa. Although
the men do use their time to discuss important things, I believe.
Farming has nothing to do with hunting-gathering.
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was
addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely.
And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a presumed parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them doing it is straight Daily Mail nonsense.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in situations, where the other parent may have died
In situations where addressing letters to deceased parents, or deceased people of
any description may be seen as insensitive, to say the very least; and where this can be easily avoided.
On 23/04/2025 23:08, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2025 16:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school
addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one >>>>>>>> of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal >>>>>>>> parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the >>>>>>>> children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was >>>>>>>> addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and >>>>>>> refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point
entirely.
And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a
presumed
parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them
doing it is
straight Daily Mail nonsense.
Er, not me.
Oh sorry, but you seemed to be supporting JNugent's disapproval...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one
parent (or only one who matters).
It might depend on the information the school has about parents. Does
it have one, or both, as points of contact?
Not something I would have thought about until I saw it suggested that,
if a family plans to take children put of school for a holiday, make
sure only one parent is listed - or both get fined.
On 24/04/2025 11:59, kat wrote:
On 23/04/2025 23:08, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2025 16:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school
addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one >>>>>>>>> of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal >>>>>>>>> parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the >>>>>>>>> children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was >>>>>>>>> addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" >>>>>>>> and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point
entirely.
And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a
presumed
parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them
doing it is
straight Daily Mail nonsense.
Er, not me.
Oh sorry, but you seemed to be supporting JNugent's disapproval...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only
one parent (or only one who matters).
It might depend on the information the school has about parents. Does
it have one, or both, as points of contact?
It is common practice to ignore the non-resident parent.
Even when the
non-resident parent has repeatedly asked for the same correspondence to
be sent to them as well as their mother.
Talking to others it's a common theme for many non-resident parents.
Not something I would have thought about until I saw it suggested
that, if a family plans to take children put of school for a holiday,
make sure only one parent is listed - or both get fined.
Yes, just before taking your kids away for holiday, send a notice to the school the father no lives at xx xxxxxx and not the family home. A sure
quick way to halve the penalty.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:4337630714.4ef3b801@uninhabited.net...
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>>
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a presumed >>>> parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them doing it is
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school addressed to >>>>>>> "The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one of us >>>>>>> as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal
parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the
children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was >>>>>>> addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" and >>>>>> refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point entirely. >>>>
straight Daily Mail nonsense.
Er, not me.
Oh sorry, but you seemed to be supporting JNugent's disapproval.
Surely all that Mr Wells was doing, was pointing out that Mr Parker's "correction" was
in fact identical to what Mr Nugent had already said ?
On 24/04/2025 14:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 12:43:48 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 10:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 09:35:31 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 24/04/2025 09:14, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 07:54:46 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/04/2025 22:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such >>>>>>>>> that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of >>>>>>>>> contract or
duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault.
Not according to the law. For it to be an assault a person must >>>>>>> intentionally or recklessly cause another to suffer or apprehend >>>>>>> immediate unlawful violence.
It's significantly less snowflaky than you think.
Consent is only valid when adequately informed of material facts. >>>>>>><snip>
Technically I suppose it's battery - but you knew that, didn't
you? We are
talking about health care, not travelling on the underground.
Again, not so. According to the CPS:
"Battery is committed by the intentional or reckless application of
unlawful force to another person. ... Where battery is selected it
should be charged as “assault by beating”: DPP v Taylor and Little >>>>> [1992] Q.B. 645."
It always pays to look up things you don't know.
Touching someone in the context of health care is unlawful force if
not done
with informed consent. This is well established.
Then you'll be able to tell us where it is well established and give us
chapter and verse.
If you have to look it up, so be it.
Indeed, I would be able to. But I don't believe the point about informed
consent is contentious at all. Whether a request for a female doctor can
appropriately met by a transwoman without her saying so is the question I
don't have a definite legal answer to. Although I'm pretty sure what
the GMC
would say, its decision could be appealed to the High Court. Whether
anyone is
clever enough to parse the SC decision and give a confident answer I
don't
know.
But I'm not going to waste my time dragging up a ton of consent case.
It is of course settled law that if a doctor carries out an unnecessary breast or gynae examination of a patient that will amount to assault -
even if the patient has consented in the mistaken belief that surely
that doctor must have a reason for doing it.
On 23/04/2025 19:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:00:36 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 22/04/2025 18:47, Roger Hayter wrote:
There is a difference between the things covered by the noun and by the >>>> adjective. And for special points, are fungi vegetable?
My understanding is that they are not.
But...
I think a chef is entitled to call them vegetables on his menu if he
wants to,
but scientifically they are certainly not plants. Sort of illustrates
my point
about the futility of debating whether tomatoes are a fruit or a
vegetable.
The important point for dietary purposes is, surely, that mushrooms
count as one of your 5 a day!
On 23/04/2025 11:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending
primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in
situations, where the other parent may have died
What's that scratching sound?
it sounds like a scraper contacting the bottom of an empty barrel.
On 24/04/2025 01:58 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/04/2025 11:59, kat wrote:
On 23/04/2025 23:08, JNugent wrote:
On 23/04/2025 16:22, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:25:58 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
On 23/04/2025 17:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 14:14:15 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 12:34, Simon Parker wrote:
On 18/04/2025 20:42, JNugent wrote:
I remember getting letters from the local primary school
addressed to
"The Parent of XXXXXX NXXXXX".
When I took issue with this tractice (effectively treating one >>>>>>>>>> of us
as though we either didn't exist or at least didn't have equal >>>>>>>>>> parental rights), I was advised that it was done to prevent the >>>>>>>>>> children of lone parents feeling "different" when the letter was >>>>>>>>>> addressed to "Mr and Mrs ...".
I respectfully suggest that you're out of date.
Such missives, IME, are now addressed "To the Parent / Guardian" >>>>>>>>> and
refer to one's "child(ren) / ward(s)".
And I respectfully suggest that you may have missed the point
entirely.
And I think you may have missed the point of why they addressed a >>>>>>> presumed
parent in the way they did. The reason you put forward for them
doing it is
straight Daily Mail nonsense.
Er, not me.
Oh sorry, but you seemed to be supporting JNugent's disapproval...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only
one parent (or only one who matters).
It might depend on the information the school has about parents. Does
it have one, or both, as points of contact?
It is common practice to ignore the non-resident parent.
What "non-resident parent"?
The important point for dietary purposes is, surely, that mushrooms count as one of
your 5 a day!
On 24/04/2025 14:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/04/2025 14:27, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2025 14:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
But I'm not going to waste my time dragging up a ton of consent case.
It is of course settled law that if a doctor carries out an
unnecessary breast or gynae examination of a patient that will amount
to assault - even if the patient has consented in the mistaken belief
that surely that doctor must have a reason for doing it.
Mr Hayter won't support his contentions with any reliable references.
Will you?
If you know, what definition of 'assault' is being used there if not
the CPS one?
It's extraordinary how you sit back and wait for others to research the topic, then find fault with their opinions.
Nobody will ever ask you to conduct a medical examination, so you don't
need to know any of the relevant law. Be thankful for that.
On 24/04/2025 14:53, Norman Wells wrote:
On 24/04/2025 14:27, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2025 14:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
But I'm not going to waste my time dragging up a ton of consent case.
It is of course settled law that if a doctor carries out an unnecessary breast or
gynae examination of a patient that will amount to assault - even if the patient has
consented in the mistaken belief that surely that doctor must have a reason for doing
it.
Mr Hayter won't support his contentions with any reliable references.
Will you?
If you know, what definition of 'assault' is being used there if not the CPS one?
It's extraordinary how you sit back and wait for others to research the topic, then
find fault with their opinions.
Nobody will ever ask you to conduct a medical examination, so you don't need to know
any of the relevant law. Be thankful for that.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending >primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in >situations, where the other parent may have died
In situations where addressing letters to deceased parents, or deceased people of
any description may be seen as insensitive, to say the very least; and where >this can be easily avoided.
On 24 Apr 2025 at 03:10:58 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 16:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 23 Apr 2025 at 19:08:34 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2025 04:12, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:29, billy bookcase wrote:
"The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message
news:m6q2pqFgk1vU3@mid.individual.net...
Today, James O'Brien on LBC drew attention to the government's plan >>>>>>> to release
statistics to show which particular races or ethnic groups commit the >>>>>>> most crimes.
His point was, what is the purpose of such statistics other than to >>>>>>> encourage
discrimination and xenophobia? I think I agree. And it seems rather >>>>>>> similar to
releasing statistics about how many trans people commit crimes. Easy >>>>>>> to say that we
should shun and avoid women who have a masculine look about them
A complete non-sequiteur.
When all that is being suggested, is that rather than being "shunned" >>>>>> or "avoided"
by anyone, MtF transitioners, whatever their appearance, should not be >>>>>> granted
admission to women only "safe spaces", from which up until now they've >>>>>> been
excluded.
You continue to miss the very obvious point that trans people are under >>>>> no obligation to identify themselves as trans when entering any
building, any "women-only safe space".
And there is no way that they can be compelled to identify themselves as >>>>> such. What, an honour system? Would there be a sign on the door along >>>>> the lines of "Trans and dogs prohibited" and would trans people have to >>>>> turn back?
Let's look at the example sometimes cited by Mr Hayter. A hospital, and >>>>> the patient says "I wish to be treated by a woman doctor". The doctor is >>>>> one of that tiny minority of trans women. The colleagues of that doctor >>>>> don't know that the doctor is trans. The doctor chooses to treat the >>>>> patient. What sort of bizarre new law would make that a crime? Can you >>>>> think of any wording for such a law?
Can you think of a law which *applies* to such a request, such that
breaching it is either an assault (of slorts) or a breach of contract or >>>> duty of care?>
Touching without consent constitutes assault. Consent is only valid when >>> adequately informed of material facts. I am pretty sure the biological sex of
the attendant would be a material fact if it had been specifically sought. >>> Especially if the patient was a victim of sexual assault, a religious woman,
or a man in various roles in Islam or Judaism who has to avoid inessential >>> contact with the opposite sex. But I think it would still be assault if the >>> patient had merely expressed a strong preference *and was then misled*. Even
if it is not an assault (and I suspect a court would find assault proven) I am
sure that the GMC would regard it as gross professional misconduct.
implied consent.
Whether consent is explicit or implied has got nothing to do with whether it is based on false information or not.snip
On 23/04/2025 10:00, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>>> On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the way I >>>>>>>>>>> understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic sense. >>>>>>>>>>Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and always >>>>>>>>>> use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a >>>>>>>>> trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore refer to >>>>>>>>> things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile
claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no
language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special word
to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, but >>>>>> that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to coerce >>>>> me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words they have
made up for their own purposes).
I agree wth that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term "trans-
woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is sufficient to
differentiate women from transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people who
are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with the
anagels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
He's slippery. His spokesman might say that he no longer believes that
trans women can be called women, but Starmer himself keeps at a
distance so that these opinions can be deniable.
I'm curious as to where in the new grand scheme of things trans-women
who have fully undergone gender reassignment surgery stand now. They
look exactly like a woman but are genetically male. I knew someone who
did just that and famously got the better of Germaine Greer after the
latter "Outed" her rather viciously years later (becoming a woman is not
a fantastic career move for a male scientist but they did it anyway).
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly claims
to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
The supreme court decision seems to conflate two issues - genetic sex at birth and the gender that someone chooses to live as.
They have come
down hard on the side of the easily testable genetic factor. Perhaps
that is how the law needs to work but it seems to conveniently ignore
all the difficult edge cases that hard and fast rule will create.
I know that the ruling was complex and of a considerable length and that
it has been miss represented by both factions in this debate. But it
looks to me like a big victory for the persecutors of trans-women.
There is a serious problem in medical records where some trans-people
are no longer called for routine tests associated with their original
birth genetic sex. A loophole which really needs to be sorted out.
On 24/04/2025 10:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
I think your belief is that if a patient says "I wish to be treated by a female clinician" this automatically means a biological female rather
than a trans female. And I say that this is not implicit and would
require further legislation. I wonder how long it will take for all to
become clear.
I suppose I could frivolously compare it to the Christian doctrine of transubstantiation. During the Eucharist, the wine becomes the blood of Christ and the wafer becomes the body of Christ. It's a truth that
Christians must believe in, whilst the logical part of their mind must understand that it is total nonsense.
Graham Greene, a Christian...
wrote a short story "The Hint of an Explanation" about a boy being
tempted to remove a wafer from the church after it had been blessed, to
give it to a person who, in context, represents the Devil and who is
assumed to have sinister plans to desecrate the wafer. All is well in
the end - the boy refuses to comply.
‘I really believe,’ my companion said, ‘that he would first of all have put it under his microscope – before he did all the other things I
expect he had planned.’
Starmer said that Duffield's comment that only women have a cervix was "something that shouldn't be said" and was "not right". He was
absolutely right, because a trans man is entitled to consider himself a
man, and probably will have a cervix. I think she may have been too dim
to understand that point and to understand that she was causing
unnecessary offence to trans men.
Eventually she flounced out of the
party in disgust but her reasons were actually quite sensible and had
little or nothing to do with trans issues. Quote: In her resignation
letter, she criticised Starmer's "cruel and unnecessary policies",
"sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice", and "hypocrisy" over his
acceptance of gifts. She also described it as "frankly embarrassing"
that he had appointed newly elected MPs as junior ministers.
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts, simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations
in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive
Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you specify.
On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts,
simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations
in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've
actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive
Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you >> specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
... and implicitly, common assault would not cover simple touching.
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Purportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this
is false flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant
and demented?
https://transrightsnow.uk/
This may not work as a link, it may be necessary to cut and past the URL.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 23:53:38 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending >>primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in >>situations, where the other parent may have died
In situations where addressing letters to deceased parents, or deceased people of
any description may be seen as insensitive, to say the very least; and where >>this can be easily avoided.
I'm inclined to agree with this. It is a matter of fact that every child has at least one parent or other person with legal parental responsibility (aka
a guardian). Many, probably most, have more than one. But it is never a safe assumption that a child has more than one.
It is also not a safe assumption that a child's parent(s) or guardian has
the same surname as the child. And even if you did have previously
documented knowledge of the names of a child's parents, it is not a safe assumption that these names remain the same. Mr and Mrs Smith, parents of little Johnny Smith, may have split up since your records were last updated. Or one of them (or even both of them) may have died.
So addressing a letter to "the parent or guardian of [child's name]", while possibly unnecesssarily formal and impersonal, avoids any risk of
incorrectly naming a parent or guardian. Quite apart from the potential insensitivity of putting the wrong parent's name on the letter, there's also a non-trivial possibility that someone who is not the named parent, but is nonetheless responsible for the child, may see another person's name on the letter and conclude that it isn't addressed to them and therefore they can discard it. Thus potentially missing out on important communication from a school, GP, or whatever.
That's why the only name that goes on the letter is that of the child, plus an indication that the letter needs to be read by whoever has parental responsibility for the child. That gives the highest probability that the letter will be read by whoever needs to read it.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Purportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented?
https://transrightsnow.uk/
This may not work as a link, it may be necessary to cut and past the URL.
On 24 Apr 2025 at 23:17:50 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts,
simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations >>> in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've >>> actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive
Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you >>> specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
... and implicitly, common assault would not cover simple touching.
I can see that it is implicit that *sexual assault* would not cover non-sexual
touching but I see nothing in that to imply that non-sexual deliberate touching without consent is *not* assault.
On 24 Apr 2025 at 23:17:50 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts,
simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations >>> in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've >>> actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive
Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you >>> specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
... and implicitly, common assault would not cover simple touching.
I can see that it is implicit that *sexual assault* would not cover non-sexual
touching but I see nothing in that to imply that non-sexual deliberate touching without consent is *not* assault.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Purportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented?
https://transrightsnow.uk/
This may not work as a link, it may be necessary to cut and past the URL.
On 2025-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Wed, 23 Apr 2025 23:53:38 +0100, "billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending
primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in
situations, where the other parent may have died
In situations where addressing letters to deceased parents, or deceased people of
any description may be seen as insensitive, to say the very least; and where
this can be easily avoided.
I'm inclined to agree with this. It is a matter of fact that every child has >> at least one parent or other person with legal parental responsibility (aka >> a guardian). Many, probably most, have more than one. But it is never a safe >> assumption that a child has more than one.
It is also not a safe assumption that a child's parent(s) or guardian has
the same surname as the child. And even if you did have previously
documented knowledge of the names of a child's parents, it is not a safe
assumption that these names remain the same. Mr and Mrs Smith, parents of
little Johnny Smith, may have split up since your records were last updated. >> Or one of them (or even both of them) may have died.
So addressing a letter to "the parent or guardian of [child's name]", while >> possibly unnecesssarily formal and impersonal, avoids any risk of
incorrectly naming a parent or guardian. Quite apart from the potential
insensitivity of putting the wrong parent's name on the letter, there's also >> a non-trivial possibility that someone who is not the named parent, but is >> nonetheless responsible for the child, may see another person's name on the >> letter and conclude that it isn't addressed to them and therefore they can >> discard it. Thus potentially missing out on important communication from a >> school, GP, or whatever.
That's why the only name that goes on the letter is that of the child, plus >> an indication that the letter needs to be read by whoever has parental
responsibility for the child. That gives the highest probability that the
letter will be read by whoever needs to read it.
It's political correctness gone mad.
On 24/04/2025 02:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Starmer said that Duffield's comment that only women have a cervix was
"something that shouldn't be said" and was "not right". He was
absolutely right, because a trans man is entitled to consider himself a
man, and probably will have a cervix. I think she may have been too dim
to understand that point and to understand that she was causing
unnecessary offence to trans men.
What about unnecessary offence to something much more like the majority
of the population? Or even "only" a signifocant minority?
Or don't they matter?
Eventually she flounced out of the
party in disgust but her reasons were actually quite sensible and had
little or nothing to do with trans issues. Quote: In her resignation
letter, she criticised Starmer's "cruel and unnecessary policies",
"sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice", and "hypocrisy" over his
acceptance of gifts. She also described it as "frankly embarrassing"
that he had appointed newly elected MPs as junior ministers.
On 24/04/2025 23:28, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 23:17:50 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts, >>>> simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations >>>> in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've >>>> actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive >>>> Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you >>>> specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
... and implicitly, common assault would not cover simple touching.
I can see that it is implicit that *sexual assault* would not cover non-sexual
touching but I see nothing in that to imply that non-sexual deliberate
touching without consent is *not* assault.
If it were, would we need a "sexual assault" offence ?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:3490785939.d37776f2@uninhabited.net...
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Purportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false
flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented?
https://transrightsnow.uk/
This may not work as a link, it may be necessary to cut and past the URL.
Rather than being "arrogant and demented", on a superficial reading at least, that
appears to be no more than a "wish list" of the kind of measures which ideally
trans-rights activists who are really sincere in their beliefs, should be asking
for .
Not that they necessarily expect to achieve them all but they simply represent
their opening negotiating position - Same as the advice often given to parties
in almost all negotiations. Start off by being as unreasonable and demanding as
possible, and work backwards from there until a compromise can be achieved..
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m6ul88F8819U4@mid.individual.net...
The important point for dietary purposes is, surely, that mushrooms count as one of
your 5 a day!
quote:
Mushrooms, button 14 button or 3 handfuls of slices, 3 to 4 heaped tablespoons
:unquote
: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-5-a-day-logo/government-5-a-day-logo-licensing-guidelines
To repeat "3 to 4 heaped tablespoons"
So good luck with that one.
On 24 Apr 2025 at 23:17:50 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts,
simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations >>> in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've >>> actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive
Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you >>> specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
... and implicitly, common assault would not cover simple touching.
I can see that it is implicit that *sexual assault* would not cover non-sexual
touching but I see nothing in that to imply that non-sexual deliberate touching without consent is *not* assault.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m6vc80Fc3iuU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/04/2025 11:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending
primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in
situations, where the other parent may have died
What's that scratching sound?
it sounds like a scraper contacting the bottom of an empty barrel.
Simply because you personally have never known of any children whose
mother or father died whilst they were still at Primary School doesn't
mean that such things never happened.
So aren't you the lucky one !
On 24/04/2025 19:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6ul88F8819U4@mid.individual.net...
The important point for dietary purposes is, surely, that mushrooms count as one of
your 5 a day!
quote:
Mushrooms, button 14 button or 3 handfuls of slices, 3 to 4 heaped tablespoons
:unquote
:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-5-a-day-logo/government-5-a-day-logo-licensing-guidelines
To repeat "3 to 4 heaped tablespoons"
So good luck with that one.
You do know that a tablespoon isn't all that big I take it? 15 ml. Equal to 3
teaspoons.
I think 9 heaped teaspoons of mushrooms isn't so difficult as to need "luck".
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending
primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in
situations, where the other parent may have died
In situations where addressing letters to deceased parents, or deceased people of
any description may be seen as insensitive, to say the very least; and where >> this can be easily avoided.
I'm inclined to agree with this. It is a matter of fact that every child has at least one parent or other person with legal parental responsibility (aka
a guardian). Many, probably most, have more than one. But it is never a safe assumption that a child has more than one.
It is also not a safe assumption that a child's parent(s) or guardian has
the same surname as the child. And even if you did have previously
documented knowledge of the names of a child's parents, it is not a safe assumption that these names remain the same. Mr and Mrs Smith, parents of little Johnny Smith, may have split up since your records were last updated. Or one of them (or even both of them) may have died.
So addressing a letter to "the parent or guardian of [child's name]", while possibly unnecesssarily formal and impersonal, avoids any risk of
incorrectly naming a parent or guardian. Quite apart from the potential insensitivity of putting the wrong parent's name on the letter, there's also a non-trivial possibility that someone who is not the named parent, but is nonetheless responsible for the child, may see another person's name on the letter and conclude that it isn't addressed to them and therefore they can discard it. Thus potentially missing out on important communication from a school, GP, or whatever.
That's why the only name that goes on the letter is that of the child, plus an indication that the letter needs to be read by whoever has parental responsibility for the child. That gives the highest probability that the letter will be read by whoever needs to read it.
On 24/04/2025 07:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6vc80Fc3iuU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/04/2025 11:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending >>>> primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in >>>> situations, where the other parent may have died
What's that scratching sound?
it sounds like a scraper contacting the bottom of an empty barrel.
Simply because you personally have never known of any children whose
mother or father died whilst they were still at Primary School doesn't
mean that such things never happened.
I wonder: how wrong is it possible for you to be?
You have reached the limit of wrongness there.
On 25/04/2025 09:16, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3490785939.d37776f2@uninhabited.net...
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>Rather than being "arrogant and demented", on a superficial reading at least, that
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Purportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false
flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented? >>
https://transrightsnow.uk/
This may not work as a link, it may be necessary to cut and past the URL. >>
appears to be no more than a "wish list" of the kind of measures which ideally
trans-rights activists who are really sincere in their beliefs, should be asking
for .
Not that they necessarily expect to achieve them all but they simply represent
their opening negotiating position - Same as the advice often given to parties
in almost all negotiations. Start off by being as unreasonable and demanding as
possible, and work backwards from there until a compromise can be achieved..
That's a very Trumpian approach to which there is actually an obvious Trumpian
response, "You don't hold any cards".
On 24/04/2025 19:16, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2025 02:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Starmer said that Duffield's comment that only women have a cervix was
"something that shouldn't be said" and was "not right". He was
absolutely right, because a trans man is entitled to consider himself a
man, and probably will have a cervix. I think she may have been too dim
to understand that point and to understand that she was causing
unnecessary offence to trans men.
What about unnecessary offence to something much more like the
majority of the population? Or even "only" a signifocant [sic] minority?
Or don't they matter?
How could it possibly cause offence to anyone?
If I said that some women have testicles (eg because they are trans
women) would that upset you as a man? Would it make you cry? Could you perhaps find a way of moving on with your life? Do you know anyone who
would be upset?
I appreciate that some people claim to be upset and offended for
political reasons.
Thus, there are Jews who would say that when Israel
is criticised for slaughtering so many people in Gaza and Lebanon, it
feels very personal, they see Israel as part of their family, so it is
like watching their grandparents being beaten up by Nazi brownshirts.
Boo fucking hoo.
Eventually she flounced out of the
party in disgust but her reasons were actually quite sensible and had
little or nothing to do with trans issues. Quote: In her resignation
letter, she criticised Starmer's "cruel and unnecessary policies",
"sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice", and "hypocrisy" over his
acceptance of gifts. She also described it as "frankly embarrassing"
that he had appointed newly elected MPs as junior ministers.
On 24/04/2025 11:28 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 23:17:50 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts, >>>> simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations >>>> in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've >>>> actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive >>>> Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you >>>> specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
... and implicitly, common assault would not cover simple touching.
I can see that it is implicit that *sexual assault* would not cover non-sexual
touching but I see nothing in that to imply that non-sexual deliberate
touching without consent is *not* assault.
Have you never tapped anyone on the shoulder to ask for space to get
past in a crowded bar?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m71dc9Fm03qU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 07:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6vc80Fc3iuU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/04/2025 11:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending >>>>> primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in >>>>> situations, where the other parent may have died
What's that scratching sound?
it sounds like a scraper contacting the bottom of an empty barrel.
Simply because you personally have never known of any children whose
mother or father died whilst they were still at Primary School doesn't
mean that such things never happened.
I wonder: how wrong is it possible for you to be?
You have reached the limit of wrongness there.
But if you personally have known of children whose mother or father died whilst they were still at Primary School, then how can you possibly charachterise my citing of such cases, as scraping the bottom of a barrel ?
On 25 Apr 2025 at 13:28:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 11:28 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 23:17:50 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts, >>>>> simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations >>>>> in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've >>>>> actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive >>>>> Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you
specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
... and implicitly, common assault would not cover simple touching.
I can see that it is implicit that *sexual assault* would not cover non-sexual
touching but I see nothing in that to imply that non-sexual deliberate
touching without consent is *not* assault.
Have you never tapped anyone on the shoulder to ask for space to get
past in a crowded bar?
You seem to have forgotten again that we are talking about examination or treatment in the context of healthcare!!!
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message news:m711avFk2hsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2025 09:16, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3490785939.d37776f2@uninhabited.net...
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>Rather than being "arrogant and demented", on a superficial reading at least, that
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityPurportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented? >>>
https://transrightsnow.uk/
This may not work as a link, it may be necessary to cut and past the URL. >>>
appears to be no more than a "wish list" of the kind of measures which ideally
trans-rights activists who are really sincere in their beliefs, should be asking
for .
Not that they necessarily expect to achieve them all but they simply represent
their opening negotiating position - Same as the advice often given to parties
in almost all negotiations. Start off by being as unreasonable and demanding as
possible, and work backwards from there until a compromise can be achieved..
That's a very Trumpian approach to which there is actually an obvious Trumpian
response, "You don't hold any cards".
Clearly you haven't yet grasped the enormous potential offered by social media, to
relatively small groups of highly motivated individuals when it comes to causing
civil disruption by exclusively peaceful means..
More especially when coupled with superglue etc..
On 25/04/2025 06:02 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 25 Apr 2025 at 13:28:23 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 11:28 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2025 at 23:17:50 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain acts, >>>>>> simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae examinations
in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both of those, I've >>>>>> actually done the research and given you the definitions the definitive >>>>>> Crown Prosecution Service applies, and neither of them covers the acts you
specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
... and implicitly, common assault would not cover simple touching. >>I can see that it is implicit that *sexual assault* would not cover non-sexual
touching but I see nothing in that to imply that non-sexual deliberate >>>> touching without consent is *not* assault.
Have you never tapped anyone on the shoulder to ask for space to get
past in a crowded bar?
You seem to have forgotten again that we are talking about examination or
treatment in the context of healthcare!!!
That was the initial topic, certainly.
Since then, *someone* said: "I see nothing ... to imply that non-sexual deliberate touching without consent is *not* assault".
Tapping someone on the shoulder to ask for space to get past in a
crowded bar *is* (surely) non-sexual deliberate touching and you were
unable to see anything to imply that is was *not* assault.
Yes... a double-negative, but not of my coinage.
On 25/04/2025 02:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m71dc9Fm03qU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 07:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6vc80Fc3iuU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/04/2025 11:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending >>>>>> primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in >>>>>> situations, where the other parent may have died
What's that scratching sound?
it sounds like a scraper contacting the bottom of an empty barrel.
Simply because you personally have never known of any children whose
mother or father died whilst they were still at Primary School doesn't >>>> mean that such things never happened.
I wonder: how wrong is it possible for you to be?
You have reached the limit of wrongness there.
But if you personally have known of children whose mother or father died
whilst they were still at Primary School, then how can you possibly
charachterise my citing of such cases, as scraping the bottom of a barrel ?
Such cases are outliers. They are not what general policy should be based upon.
On 25/04/2025 12:04 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote in message
news:m711avFk2hsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2025 09:16, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:3490785939.d37776f2@uninhabited.net...
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>Rather than being "arrogant and demented", on a superficial reading at >>>> least, that
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the EqualityPurportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented? >>>>
https://transrightsnow.uk/
This may not work as a link, it may be necessary to cut and past the URL. >>>>
appears to be no more than a "wish list" of the kind of measures which ideally
trans-rights activists who are really sincere in their beliefs, should be >>>> asking
for .
Not that they necessarily expect to achieve them all but they simply represent
their opening negotiating position - Same as the advice often given to parties
in almost all negotiations. Start off by being as unreasonable and demanding as
possible, and work backwards from there until a compromise can be achieved..
That's a very Trumpian approach to which there is actually an obvious Trumpian
response, "You don't hold any cards".
Clearly you haven't yet grasped the enormous potential offered by social
media, to
relatively small groups of highly motivated individuals when it comes to
causing
civil disruption by exclusively peaceful means..
More especially when coupled with superglue etc..
Using glue doesn't sound all that peaceful. Or all that lawful.
On 24/04/2025 06:22 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending
primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in
situations, where the other parent may have died
In situations where addressing letters to deceased parents, or deceased people of
any description may be seen as insensitive, to say the very least; and where
this can be easily avoided.
I'm inclined to agree with this. It is a matter of fact that every child has >> at least one parent or other person with legal parental responsibility (aka >> a guardian). Many, probably most, have more than one. But it is never a safe >> assumption that a child has more than one.
So what?
It is also not a safe assumption that a child's parent(s) or guardian has
the same surname as the child. And even if you did have previously
documented knowledge of the names of a child's parents, it is not a safe
assumption that these names remain the same. Mr and Mrs Smith, parents of
little Johnny Smith, may have split up since your records were last updated. >> Or one of them (or even both of them) may have died.
That is easily addressed. The surname(s) of the parents are recorded at enrolment and
are told that those names will be used in future communication unless and until the
school is advised of a change.
That's what any other organisation would do.
So addressing a letter to "the parent or guardian of [child's name]", while >> possibly unnecesssarily formal and impersonal, avoids any risk of
incorrectly naming a parent or guardian. Quite apart from the potential
insensitivity of putting the wrong parent's name on the letter, there's also >> a non-trivial possibility that someone who is not the named parent, but is >> nonetheless responsible for the child, may see another person's name on the >> letter and conclude that it isn't addressed to them and therefore they can >> discard it. Thus potentially missing out on important communication from a >> school, GP, or whatever.
That's why the only name that goes on the letter is that of the child, plus >> an indication that the letter needs to be read by whoever has parental
responsibility for the child. That gives the highest probability that the
letter will be read by whoever needs to read it.
The method of personal salutation (actual surnames, etc) is of little importance, and I
certainly have not mentioned it save to rebut the argument put above by the PP.
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be treated as
living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
Of course, there is no such thing as a one-parent family. Every child has two parents,
living or dead. Every living parent who lives at an address different from that of the
child is still a family member and has every right to be kept apprised of the child's
progress (or otherwise) at school.
Who DO these people think they are?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that onlyYou really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with the
women have a cervix?
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
Those who think any criticism of gender identity theory is "evil" might benefit from reading it.
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. Society
will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect being treated
as.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
Those who think any criticism of gender identity theory is "evil" might benefit from reading it.
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m718h2Fl1n9U2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 19:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in messageYou do know that a tablespoon isn't all that big I take it? 15 ml. Equal to 3
news:m6ul88F8819U4@mid.individual.net...
The important point for dietary purposes is, surely, that mushrooms count as one of
your 5 a day!
quote:
Mushrooms, button 14 button or 3 handfuls of slices, 3 to 4 heaped tablespoons
:unquote
:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-5-a-day-logo/government-5-a-day-logo-licensing-guidelines
To repeat "3 to 4 heaped tablespoons"
So good luck with that one.
teaspoons.
I think 9 heaped teaspoons of mushrooms isn't so difficult as to need "luck".
Alright then, if you really insist " 14 button mushrooms."
That's not an accompaniment to a meal, that's a meal in itself.
Just so long as you *really* happen to like mushrooms.
Lots of them.
For the first couple of days, at least.
And is equivalent to *one* orange,
While the reason potatoes aren't included, is that while potatoes are a good source of vitamin C and potassium, even more so than bananas, along
with other nutrients most of these are in the skin. Which people discard. Whereas in Ireland prior to the famine where potatoes along with
buttermilk were the main components of the diet of a large proportion
of the rural population, potatos were cooked and eaten in their skins.
bb
I was really hoping to read this article but gave up when asked to
"select all images with motorcycles", then bridges, then hydrants etc.
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Those who think any criticism of gender identity theory is "evil" might
benefit from reading it.
Do any such people exist? Or is that a strawman you have invented?
I just think she should be less evil.
Please do try to at least remain within sight of the shores of reality,
even if you have to use a telescope to see them, lest you become totally lost.
The Todal wrote:
I was really hoping to read this article but gave up when asked to
"select all images with motorcycles", then bridges, then hydrants etc.
zero captchas here
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect
being treated as.
The law is clear.
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and
ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but
that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
On 25/04/2025 23:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually women is
worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who is not actually >> taking sides in terms of belief but explains the Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/ >>
Those who think any criticism of gender identity theory is "evil" might
benefit from reading it.
I was really hoping to read this article but gave up when asked to
"select all images with motorcycles", then bridges, then hydrants etc.
I think I know what the article is about.
I don't think criticism of gender identity theory is evil, speaking for myself, and I was glad that Forstater won her claims and I even
contributed to her crowdfund.
The problem is when valid opinions about gender identity are weaponised, turned into soundbites and used to taunt and humiliate trans people.
On 24/04/2025 10:54 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/04/2025 10:00, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent"
<jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the >>>>>>>>>>>> way I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic >>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and
always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a >>>>>>>>>> trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore
refer to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile >>>>>>>>> claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no >>>>>>>>> language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special
word to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist,
but that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words
they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree wth that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term
"trans- woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is
sufficient to differentiate women from
transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with
the anagels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
He's slippery. His spokesman might say that he no longer believes
that trans women can be called women, but Starmer himself keeps at
a distance so that these opinions can be deniable.
I'm curious as to where in the new grand scheme of things
trans-women who have fully undergone gender reassignment surgery
stand now. They look exactly like a woman but are genetically male.
I knew someone who did just that and famously got the better of
Germaine Greer after the latter "Outed" her rather viciously years
later (becoming a woman is not a fantastic career move for a male
scientist but they did it anyway).
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly
claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
The supreme court decision seems to conflate two issues - genetic
sex at birth and the gender that someone chooses to live as.
Surely it distinguishes those concepts, rather than conflating them?
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. Society
will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect being treated
as.
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but
that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually women is
worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who is not actually >> taking sides in terms of belief but explains the Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
Those who think any criticism of gender identity theory is "evil" might
benefit from reading it.
Do any such people exist? Or is that a strawman you have invented?
Please do try to at least remain within sight of the shores of reality,
even if you have to use a telescope to see them, lest you become totally lost.
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that only women
have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be regarded by
society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to that person
that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't understand the
point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to
that person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of
the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that smear
test that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them as a man
and not invite them.
On 26/04/2025 00:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect
being treated as.
The law is clear.
You mean now that the Supreme Court has clarified it?
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant
journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately nobody can
say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Well, there are ways of determining public opinion, unsurprisingly
called opinion polls, which have statistical maths behind them with
things known as confidence limits, so I don't think what you say is
correct.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish,
but that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Now we're into the realms of philosophy. What is 'right'? Is it
something ordained by a deity, dictated by a person, defined by public opinion, or what? Perhaps you'd answer that.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be *treated*, but the public
may nevertheless *regard* them as unnatural freaks. You can't legislate
for the latter.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:01:45 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. Society
will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect being treated >>> as.
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and
ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but
that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
But "The person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender" is simply not what the law says.
inherit a title of nobility such as a born man would. And it also stated that the law could make other exceptions. Which, as the SC has said, it does.
So not for "all purposes". That is simply not true.
On 26/04/2025 10:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:01:45 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>> only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be >>>>> regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. Society >>>> will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect being treated >>>> as.
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and
ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but
that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
But "The person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender" is >> simply not what the law says.
You *do* know that I was simply quoting from the Gender Recognition Act?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/section/9
(I agree of course that there is more to it, in certain specified circumstances some of which perhaps have yet to be properly defined)
Even the GRA said that a transman could not
inherit a title of nobility such as a born man would. And it also stated that
the law could make other exceptions. Which, as the SC has said, it does.
So not for "all purposes". That is simply not true.
On 26/04/2025 11:13, kat wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to
that person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of
the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that smear
test that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them as a man
and not invite them.
Excellent point!
If the hospital were to say "all those with cervixes please arrange an appointment for a smear test" you'd then have JK Rowling scornfully
tweeting "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone
help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
That would shame trans men into missing out on this vital health check
but no matter. By shaming them, you encourage them to follow the path of righteousness, confess to their error and embrace their true identity as women.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be treated, but the public may >>nevertheless regard them as unnatural freaks. You can't legislate for >>the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman, less >intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You can >legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the public" is >always going to form its own opinions and defy the law. Where do those >opinions come from, though?
On 26/04/2025 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 00:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>> only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to
be regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect
being treated as.
The law is clear.
You mean now that the Supreme Court has clarified it?
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant
journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately nobody
can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Well, there are ways of determining public opinion, unsurprisingly
called opinion polls, which have statistical maths behind them with
things known as confidence limits, so I don't think what you say is
correct.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish,
but that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Now we're into the realms of philosophy. What is 'right'? Is it
something ordained by a deity, dictated by a person, defined by public
opinion, or what? Perhaps you'd answer that.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be *treated*, but the public
may nevertheless *regard* them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman, less intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You can legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the public"
is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law. Where do
those opinions come from, though?
On 25/04/2025 12:16, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m718h2Fl1n9U2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 19:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in messageYou do know that a tablespoon isn't all that big I take it? 15 ml. Equal to 3
news:m6ul88F8819U4@mid.individual.net...
The important point for dietary purposes is, surely, that mushrooms count as one of
your 5 a day!
quote:
Mushrooms, button 14 button or 3 handfuls of slices, 3 to 4 heaped >>>> tablespoons
:unquote
:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-5-a-day-logo/government-5-a-day-logo-licensing-guidelines
To repeat "3 to 4 heaped tablespoons"
So good luck with that one.
teaspoons.
I think 9 heaped teaspoons of mushrooms isn't so difficult as to need "luck".
Alright then, if you really insist " 14 button mushrooms."
That's not an accompaniment to a meal, that's a meal in itself.
Just so long as you *really* happen to like mushrooms.
Lots of them.
Well, I do, but 14 button mushrooms are really rather small and just about right in a
good mushroom omelet.
For the first couple of days, at least.
And is equivalent to *one* orange,
One large orange, not a small "easy peeler". 150 ml of juice counts as one portion (
no more than one a day) which is a lot more than three heaped tablespoons.
While the reason potatoes aren't included, is that while potatoes are a good >> source of vitamin C and potassium, even more so than bananas, along
with other nutrients most of these are in the skin. Which people discard.
Whereas in Ireland prior to the famine where potatoes along with
buttermilk were the main components of the diet of a large proportion
of the rural population, potatos were cooked and eaten in their skins.
bb
I like potato skins, skin on chips, baked potatoes, etc. But you do have to chop the
skins well for mash. Can be done.
On 26/04/2025 11:13, kat wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to
that person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of
the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that smear
test that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them as a man
and not invite them.
Excellent point!
If the hospital were to say "all those with cervixes please arrange an appointment for a smear test" you'd then have JK Rowling scornfully
tweeting "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone
help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
That would shame trans men into missing out on this vital health check
but no matter. By shaming them, you encourage them to follow the path of righteousness, confess to their error and embrace their true identity as women.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:37:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>> As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually
women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who
is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the
Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/ >>
Those who think any criticism of gender identity theory is "evil" might
benefit from reading it.
Do any such people exist? Or is that a strawman you have invented?
Did you actually read the banners at the recent pro-trans demonstration?
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:19:07 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 10:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:01:45 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be >>>>>> regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. Society >>>>> will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect being treated >>>>> as.
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and >>>> ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction. >>>>
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but >>>> that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
But "The person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender" is >>> simply not what the law says.
You *do* know that I was simply quoting from the Gender Recognition Act?
Indeed I do, section 9.1; and this is section 9.3:
"Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m71v85Foo0uU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2025 02:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in messageSuch cases are outliers. They are not what general policy should be based upon.
news:m71dc9Fm03qU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 07:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6vc80Fc3iuU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/04/2025 11:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending >>>>>>> primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in >>>>>>> situations, where the other parent may have died
What's that scratching sound?
it sounds like a scraper contacting the bottom of an empty barrel.
Simply because you personally have never known of any children whose >>>>> mother or father died whilst they were still at Primary School doesn't >>>>> mean that such things never happened.
I wonder: how wrong is it possible for you to be?
You have reached the limit of wrongness there.
But if you personally have known of children whose mother or father died >>> whilst they were still at Primary School, then how can you possibly
charachterise my citing of such cases, as scraping the bottom of a barrel ? >>
Indeed So.
General policy should be based on what the majority of those affected find most convenient, and acceptable. Both in terms of those clients using the system,
and those tasked with administering it, in as efficient a manner as possible.
If it isn't already apparent to you, that *you are very much the outlier yourself*, insofar as your stated preferences in this matter are concerned, then it is my unfortunate duty to inform you, that this would clearly
appear to be very much the case.
On 25 Apr 2025 at 18:29:33 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2025 12:04 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
Clearly you haven't yet grasped the enormous potential offered by social >>> media, to relatively small groups of highly motivated individuals when it >>> comes to causing civil disruption by exclusively peaceful means..
More especially when coupled with superglue etc..
Using glue doesn't sound all that peaceful. Or all that lawful.
Well it's certainly unlawful, because the last government made a law against it.
But I don't accept your apparent definition that something that annoys a
lot of people is therefore not peaceful. You'll be after Ghandi next. Who was largely peaceful, though sometimes annoying and illegal.
On 26/04/2025 in message <m73q4vF34q8U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be treated, but the public
may nevertheless regard them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman,
less intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You
can legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the
public" is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law.
Where do those opinions come from, though?
Opinions come from lifetime experience, rarely based on fact (otherwise
we would all have the same opinions) and we are free to hold whatever opinions we want to. As one of Voltaire's biographers said "I disagree
with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m718h2Fl1n9U2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 19:57, billy bookcase wrote:
"kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:m6ul88F8819U4@mid.individual.net...
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-5-a-day-logo/government-5-a-day-logo-licensing-guidelines
While the reason potatoes aren't included, is that while potatoes are a good source of vitamin C and potassium, even more so than bananas, along
with other nutrients most of these are in the skin. Which people discard. Whereas in Ireland prior to the famine where potatoes along with
buttermilk were the main components of the diet of a large proportion
of the rural population, potatos were cooked and eaten in their skins.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m71d7uFm03qU1@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 06:22 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending >>>> primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in >>>> situations, where the other parent may have died
In situations where addressing letters to deceased parents, or deceased people of
any description may be seen as insensitive, to say the very least; and where
this can be easily avoided.
I'm inclined to agree with this. It is a matter of fact that every child has
at least one parent or other person with legal parental responsibility (aka >>> a guardian). Many, probably most, have more than one. But it is never a safe
assumption that a child has more than one.
So what?
It is also not a safe assumption that a child's parent(s) or guardian has >>> the same surname as the child. And even if you did have previously
documented knowledge of the names of a child's parents, it is not a safe >>> assumption that these names remain the same. Mr and Mrs Smith, parents of >>> little Johnny Smith, may have split up since your records were last updated.
Or one of them (or even both of them) may have died.
That is easily addressed. The surname(s) of the parents are recorded at enrolment and
are told that those names will be used in future communication unless and until the
school is advised of a change.
That's what any other organisation would do.
So addressing a letter to "the parent or guardian of [child's name]", while >>> possibly unnecesssarily formal and impersonal, avoids any risk of
incorrectly naming a parent or guardian. Quite apart from the potential
insensitivity of putting the wrong parent's name on the letter, there's also
a non-trivial possibility that someone who is not the named parent, but is >>> nonetheless responsible for the child, may see another person's name on the >>> letter and conclude that it isn't addressed to them and therefore they can >>> discard it. Thus potentially missing out on important communication from a >>> school, GP, or whatever.
That's why the only name that goes on the letter is that of the child, plus >>> an indication that the letter needs to be read by whoever has parental
responsibility for the child. That gives the highest probability that the >>> letter will be read by whoever needs to read it.
The method of personal salutation (actual surnames, etc) is of little importance, and I
certainly have not mentioned it save to rebut the argument put above by the PP.
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be treated as
living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
Of course, there is no such thing as a one-parent family. Every child has two parents,
living or dead. Every living parent who lives at an address different from that of the
child is still a family member and has every right to be kept apprised of the child's
progress (or otherwise) at school.
Who DO these people think they are?
Welcome to the Fallacy of Confirming the Consequent. Logic 101
If (a) a child has two living parents, then (b) that child has one living parent
Does not entail
If (b) a child has one living parent then (a) that child has two living parents,
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:13, kat wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to
that person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of
the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that smear
test that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them as a man
and not invite them.
Excellent point!
If the hospital were to say "all those with cervixes please arrange an
appointment for a smear test" you'd then have JK Rowling scornfully
tweeting "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone
help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
On what basis do you believe that she would do that?
That would shame trans men into missing out on this vital health check
but no matter. By shaming them, you encourage them to follow the path of
righteousness, confess to their error and embrace their true identity as
women.
Is the problem here that trans rights activists have demanded control of
the meaning of the words and it does those who are truly transgender no favours.
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to that person that you regard that person as a woman still.
Because of the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect
being treated as.
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but
that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
On 26/04/2025 11:17, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 00:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to
be regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect
being treated as.
The law is clear.
You mean now that the Supreme Court has clarified it?
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant
journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately nobody
can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Well, there are ways of determining public opinion, unsurprisingly
called opinion polls, which have statistical maths behind them with
things known as confidence limits, so I don't think what you say is
correct.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish,
but that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Now we're into the realms of philosophy. What is 'right'? Is it
something ordained by a deity, dictated by a person, defined by public
opinion, or what? Perhaps you'd answer that.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be *treated*, but the public
may nevertheless *regard* them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman, less
intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You can
legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the public"
is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law. Where do
those opinions come from, though?
They may be irrational, but they may also be based on evidence and/or experience. The problem arises when there is substantial, indeed
possibly probative, evidence to support them but the law insists otherwise.
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most
of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the
north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that those concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled
to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:19:07 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 10:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:01:45 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be >>>>>>> regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. Society >>>>>> will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect being treated >>>>>> as.
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and >>>>> ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately >>>>> nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction. >>>>>
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but >>>>> that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
But "The person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender" is
simply not what the law says.
You *do* know that I was simply quoting from the Gender Recognition Act?
Indeed I do, section 9.1; and this is section 9.3:
"Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other
enactment or any subordinate legislation."
Bit weird to say it's "simply not what the law says" when it's a literal word-for-word quote of what the law says though. Your statement was
simply false.
Presumably you meant "it's not quite that simple" which would have been
fair comment - although going on about peerages does make it seem like
you are grasping at the thinnest of straws.
On 19:08 24 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 24/04/2025 10:54 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/04/2025 10:00, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have >>>>>>>> transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent"
<jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> way I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic >>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and >>>>>>>>>>>> always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a >>>>>>>>>>> trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore >>>>>>>>>>> refer to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile >>>>>>>>>> claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no >>>>>>>>>> language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us.
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special
word to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, >>>>>>>> but that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words >>>>>>> they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree wth that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term
"trans- woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is
sufficient to differentiate women from
transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people
who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with
the anagels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
He's slippery. His spokesman might say that he no longer believes
that trans women can be called women, but Starmer himself keeps at
a distance so that these opinions can be deniable.
I'm curious as to where in the new grand scheme of things
trans-women who have fully undergone gender reassignment surgery
stand now. They look exactly like a woman but are genetically male.
I knew someone who did just that and famously got the better of
Germaine Greer after the latter "Outed" her rather viciously years
later (becoming a woman is not a fantastic career move for a male
scientist but they did it anyway).
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly
claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
The supreme court decision seems to conflate two issues - genetic
sex at birth and the gender that someone chooses to live as.
Surely it distinguishes those concepts, rather than conflating them?
As I understand it, the terms "gender" and "sex" were interchangeable
since their origins, over a millenium ago.
However the meaning of "sex" also includes sexual behaviour, leaving
"gender" to be the less ambiguous term. This clarity became muddied when
in the 1960s, some feminist authors made a different use of "gender" which
is what we see argued over today.
On 26/04/2025 12:01 AM, The Todal wrote:
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and
ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but
that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
Isn't that final bit in conflict with a recent Supreme Court ruling?
On 19:08 24 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 24/04/2025 10:54 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/04/2025 10:00, The Todal wrote:
The supreme court decision seems to conflate two issues - genetic
sex at birth and the gender that someone chooses to live as.
Surely it distinguishes those concepts, rather than conflating them?
As I understand it, the terms "gender" and "sex" were interchangeable
since their origins, over a millenium ago.
However the meaning of "sex" also includes sexual behaviour, leaving
"gender" to be the less ambiguous term. This clarity became muddied when
in the 1960s, some feminist authors made a different use of "gender" which
is what we see argued over today.
On 24/04/2025 18:33, Norman Wells wrote:
You and Mr Hayter have both come here baldly stating that certain
acts, simple touching in his case, and unnecessary breast or gynae
examinations in yours, constitute assault or battery. As regards both
of those, I've actually done the research and given you the
definitions the definitive Crown Prosecution Service applies, and
neither of them covers the acts you specify.
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
On 26/04/2025 11:57, Jeff Gaines wrote:
On 26/04/2025 in message <m73q4vF34q8U1@mid.individual.net> The Todal
wrote:
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be treated, but the public
may nevertheless regard them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman,
less intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You
can legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the
public" is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law.
Where do those opinions come from, though?
Opinions come from lifetime experience, rarely based on fact
(otherwise we would all have the same opinions) and we are free to
hold whatever opinions we want to. As one of Voltaire's biographers
said "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it".
It's a lovely slogan. Would you have said it to Julius Streicher?
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:19:07 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 10:55, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:01:45 BST, "The Todal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>>
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be >>>>>>> regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. Society >>>>>> will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect being treated >>>>>> as.
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and >>>>> ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately >>>>> nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction. >>>>>
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but >>>>> that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
But "The person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender" is
simply not what the law says.
You *do* know that I was simply quoting from the Gender Recognition Act?
Indeed I do, section 9.1; and this is section 9.3:
"Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other
enactment or any subordinate legislation."
Bit weird to say it's "simply not what the law says" when it's a literal word-for-word quote of what the law says though. Your statement was
simply false.
Presumably you meant "it's not quite that simple" which would have been
fair comment - although going on about peerages does make it seem like
you are grasping at the thinnest of straws.
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:37:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>> As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the
Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not theA good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter
are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>
women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who
is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the
Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
No comment on this then? On this topic only, you seem somehow perfectly
happy to repeatedly make blatantly false or misleading statements.
Those who think any criticism of gender identity theory is "evil" might >>>> benefit from reading it.
Do any such people exist? Or is that a strawman you have invented?
Did you actually read the banners at the recent pro-trans demonstration?
There were lots of banners, but if there was one that said "any
criticism of gender identity theory is evil" then I must have missed
it.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:13, kat wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to
that person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of
the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that smear
test that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them as a man
and not invite them.
Excellent point!
If the hospital were to say "all those with cervixes please arrange an
appointment for a smear test" you'd then have JK Rowling scornfully
tweeting "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone
help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
On what basis do you believe that she would do that?
That would shame trans men into missing out on this vital health check
but no matter. By shaming them, you encourage them to follow the path of
righteousness, confess to their error and embrace their true identity as
women.
Is the problem here that trans rights activists have demanded control of
the meaning of the words and it does those who are truly transgender no favours.
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality >> Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender >> Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex
discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Purportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented?
https://transrightsnow.uk/
On 26/04/2025 15:07, JNugent wrote:
On 26/04/2025 12:01 AM, The Todal wrote:
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and
ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but
that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
Isn't that final bit in conflict with a recent Supreme Court ruling?
No. You could only think so if you hadn't read the judgment with
sufficient care.
On 26/04/2025 09:23 AM, Pamela wrote:
On 19:08 24 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 24/04/2025 10:54 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/04/2025 10:00, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have >>>>>>>>> transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent"
<jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and >>>>>>>>>>>>> always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a >>>>>>>>>>>> trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> refer to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile >>>>>>>>>>> claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no >>>>>>>>>>> language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us. >>>>>>>>>>
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special >>>>>>>> word to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, >>>>>>>>> but that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words >>>>>>>> they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree wth that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term
"trans- woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is
sufficient to differentiate women from
transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people >>>>>>> who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with
the anagels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
He's slippery. His spokesman might say that he no longer believes
that trans women can be called women, but Starmer himself keeps at
a distance so that these opinions can be deniable.
I'm curious as to where in the new grand scheme of things
trans-women who have fully undergone gender reassignment surgery
stand now. They look exactly like a woman but are genetically male.
I knew someone who did just that and famously got the better of
Germaine Greer after the latter "Outed" her rather viciously years
later (becoming a woman is not a fantastic career move for a male
scientist but they did it anyway).
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly
claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
The supreme court decision seems to conflate two issues - genetic
sex at birth and the gender that someone chooses to live as.
Surely it distinguishes those concepts, rather than conflating them?
As I understand it, the terms "gender" and "sex" were interchangeable
since their origins, over a millenium ago.
I never encountered the term "gender" until my first year at grammar
school, aged 10. The place where I encountered them was in French and
latin classes, with the phrases male / female / neuter all described as genders.
However the meaning of "sex" also includes sexual behaviour, leaving
"gender" to be the less ambiguous term. This clarity became muddied when
in the 1960s, some feminist authors made a different use of "gender" which >> is what we see argued over today.
The words, as you say, were always synonyms. I can understand why a
school preferred "gender" to "sex".
On 26/04/2025 09:23 AM, Pamela wrote:
On 19:08 24 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 24/04/2025 10:54 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/04/2025 10:00, The Todal wrote:
On 22/04/2025 20:31, JNugent wrote:
On 21/04/2025 17:08, Pamela wrote:
On 16:36 20 Apr 2025, JNugent said:
On 20/04/2025 03:10, GB wrote:
On 20/04/2025 01:11, JNugent wrote:
On 19/04/2025 13:54, Roger Hayter wrote:Cis is a simple term for distinguishing between people who have >>>>>>>>> transitioned (whatever that means!) and those who haven't.
On 19 Apr 2025 at 19:07:17 BST, "JNugent"
<jnugent73@mail.com>
On 19/04/2025 05:23, GB wrote:
On 18/04/2025 17:54, JNugent wrote:
It means "on this/the known side of" and so, used in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> way I understand some try to use it, makes no linguistic >>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense.
Forgetting the etymology, it's a useful shortcut.
"Useful" to whom?
Not to me.
Is it useful to you? If so, for what purpose?
Do you never refer to "TV", "fridge", or "hoover", and >>>>>>>>>>>>> always use the full term?
Those are accepted parts of the language (pacé the use of a >>>>>>>>>>>> trade name as a generic) and the abbreviations therefore >>>>>>>>>>>> refer to things which are not in dispute
You're entitled to dislike the term, but it is pretty futile >>>>>>>>>>> claiming it is not part of the language by now! There are no >>>>>>>>>>> language police, unfortunately.
It isn't part of the language.
Self-appointed obsessives cannot dictate to the rest of us. >>>>>>>>>>
"Cis" is simply a made-up term. There is no need for a special >>>>>>>> word to describe normality. We already have that word.
You may not approve of transitioning, or wish it didn't exist, >>>>>>>>> but that doesn't make any difference to reality.
It's absolutely none of my business, in fact.
It only becomes any part of my business when someone tries to
coerce me into behaving abnormally (for instance, by using words >>>>>>>> they have made up for their own purposes).
I agree wth that. The prefix "cis" is unnecessary. The term
"trans- woman" (or if one prefers it, "pseudo-woman") is
sufficient to differentiate women from
transvestites/transsexuals.
Confusion arises only when "woman" is incorrectly used for people >>>>>>> who are not biologically women.
I see that that nice Mr Starman has decided at last to side with
the anagels and to oppose certain members of his Cabinet.
He's slippery. His spokesman might say that he no longer believes
that trans women can be called women, but Starmer himself keeps at
a distance so that these opinions can be deniable.
I'm curious as to where in the new grand scheme of things
trans-women who have fully undergone gender reassignment surgery
stand now. They look exactly like a woman but are genetically male.
I knew someone who did just that and famously got the better of
Germaine Greer after the latter "Outed" her rather viciously years
later (becoming a woman is not a fantastic career move for a male
scientist but they did it anyway).
He's cross that Kemi Badenough makes him look stupid on this one
issue. She's been underperforming for many months but suddenly
claims to be vindicated by the Supreme Court.
The supreme court decision seems to conflate two issues - genetic
sex at birth and the gender that someone chooses to live as.
Surely it distinguishes those concepts, rather than conflating them?
As I understand it, the terms "gender" and "sex" were interchangeable
since their origins, over a millenium ago.
I never encountered the term "gender" until my first year at grammar
school, aged 10. The place where I encountered them was in French and
latin classes, with the phrases male / female / neuter all described as genders.
However the meaning of "sex" also includes sexual behaviour, leaving
"gender" to be the less ambiguous term. This clarity became muddied when
in the 1960s, some feminist authors made a different use of "gender"
which
is what we see argued over today.
The words, as you say, were always synonyms. I can understand why a
school preferred "gender" to "sex".
On 26/04/2025 12:01 AM, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect
being treated as.
The law is clear. Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and
ignorant journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately
nobody can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, but
that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
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).
Isn't that final bit in conflict with a recent Supreme Court ruling?
On 24/04/2025 19:16, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2025 02:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Starmer said that Duffield's comment that only women have a cervix was
"something that shouldn't be said" and was "not right". He was
absolutely right, because a trans man is entitled to consider himself a
man, and probably will have a cervix. I think she may have been too dim
to understand that point and to understand that she was causing
unnecessary offence to trans men.
What about unnecessary offence to something much more like the
majority of the population? Or even "only" a signifocant minority?
Or don't they matter?
How could it possibly cause offence to anyone?
If I said that some women have testicles (eg because they are trans
women) would that upset you as a man? Would it make you cry? Could you perhaps find a way of moving on with your life? Do you know anyone who would be upset?
I appreciate that some people claim to be upset and offended for
political reasons. Thus, there are Jews who would say that when Israel
is criticised for slaughtering so many people in Gaza and Lebanon, it
feels very personal, they see Israel as part of their family, so it is
like watching their grandparents being beaten up by Nazi brownshirts.
Boo fucking hoo.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:17, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 00:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to >>>>>>> be regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect >>>>>> being treated as.
The law is clear.
You mean now that the Supreme Court has clarified it?
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant
journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately nobody
can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Well, there are ways of determining public opinion, unsurprisingly
called opinion polls, which have statistical maths behind them with
things known as confidence limits, so I don't think what you say is
correct.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish,
but that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Now we're into the realms of philosophy. What is 'right'? Is it
something ordained by a deity, dictated by a person, defined by public >>>> opinion, or what? Perhaps you'd answer that.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be *treated*, but the public >>>> may nevertheless *regard* them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman, less
intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You can
legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the public"
is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law. Where do
those opinions come from, though?
They may be irrational, but they may also be based on evidence and/or
experience. The problem arises when there is substantial, indeed
possibly probative, evidence to support them but the law insists otherwise. >>
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most
of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the
north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that those
concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled
to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy
liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against individuals from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
On 24/04/2025 23:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Purportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false
flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented?
https://transrightsnow.uk/
"Gender Affirming treatment to be provided on an informed consent basis
for those over 18, and those under 18 who are Gillick competent."
This statement, in the "Healthcare" section is a little surprising, as
it effectively bans puberty blockers and hormone treatment for children (which is necessary for an effective transition), unless "Gillick
competency" is dished out willy-nilly.
(Hey, does "Gillick competency" apply to all normally banned activities? Would I be allowed to have sex with a child who is on puberty blockers?
Sound like a paedophile's charter. In fact, only a paedophile would want
to block puberty indefinitely.)
On 26 Apr 2025 at 12:56:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:37:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>> As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they areA good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>
women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who >>>>> is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the
Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
No comment on this then? On this topic only, you seem somehow perfectly
happy to repeatedly make blatantly false or misleading statements.
I didn't say the author had no personal view. Although I actually do
not know if he agrees with Maya Forstater. You really don't have to
agree with your client, you know.
I said that the article was written neutrally.
On 25/04/2025 09:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m71v85Foo0uU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2025 02:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m71dc9Fm03qU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 07:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6vc80Fc3iuU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/04/2025 11:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:Simply because you personally have never known of any children whose >>>>>> mother or father died whilst they were still at Primary School doesn't >>>>>> mean that such things never happened.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending
primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in
situations, where the other parent may have died
What's that scratching sound?
it sounds like a scraper contacting the bottom of an empty barrel. >>>>>>
I wonder: how wrong is it possible for you to be?
You have reached the limit of wrongness there.
But if you personally have known of children whose mother or father died >>>> whilst they were still at Primary School, then how can you possibly
charachterise my citing of such cases, as scraping the bottom of a barrel ?
Such cases are outliers. They are not what general policy should be based upon.
Indeed So.
General policy should be based on what the majority of those affected find >> most convenient, and acceptable. Both in terms of those clients using the system,
and those tasked with administering it, in as efficient a manner as possible.
No. We are here discussing factual situations.
Most children have two living parents. The outlier cases of half- or full orphans are
the tail, not the dog.
If it isn't already apparent to you, that *you are very much the outlier
yourself*, insofar as your stated preferences in this matter are concerned, >> then it is my unfortunate duty to inform you, that this would clearly
appear to be very much the case.
Whatever.
I reserve the right to object to letters from school addressing the two of us as though
we are one.
Or as though one of us (I suspect, the male) has no parental rights.
Opinions come from lifetime experience, rarely based on fact (otherwise we would all
have the same opinions)
When it comes to their own health, people know their own business best.
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 12:56:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:37:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>>>>> As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the
latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they areA good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually
perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>
women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who >>>>>> is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the
Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
No comment on this then? On this topic only, you seem somehow perfectly
happy to repeatedly make blatantly false or misleading statements.
I didn't say the author had no personal view. Although I actually do
not know if he agrees with Maya Forstater. You really don't have to
agree with your client, you know.
If you read the article, you might find out if he agrees with Forstater. (Spoiler alert: he does.)
I said that the article was written neutrally.
... which is also utterly, utterly false. It is a partisan polemic.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:17, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 00:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to >>>>>>> be regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect >>>>>> being treated as.
The law is clear.
You mean now that the Supreme Court has clarified it?
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant
journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately nobody
can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Well, there are ways of determining public opinion, unsurprisingly
called opinion polls, which have statistical maths behind them with
things known as confidence limits, so I don't think what you say is
correct.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish,
but that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Now we're into the realms of philosophy. What is 'right'? Is it
something ordained by a deity, dictated by a person, defined by public >>>> opinion, or what? Perhaps you'd answer that.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be *treated*, but the public >>>> may nevertheless *regard* them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman, less
intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You can
legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the public"
is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law. Where do
those opinions come from, though?
They may be irrational, but they may also be based on evidence and/or
experience. The problem arises when there is substantial, indeed
possibly probative, evidence to support them but the law insists otherwise. >>
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most
of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the
north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that those
concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled
to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy
liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against individuals from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m7483mF5a23U1@mid.individual.net...
When it comes to their own health, people know their own business best.
The Donald Trump/Elon Musk Healthcare Plan
Sack 'Em All !
On 25/04/2025 11:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with the
facts?
Why do you try to answer a question (about an assertion YOU made) with a question?
Please answer mine first.
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
Wjhat does that have to wiuth the question I asked you?
Please describe how and why the person you describe is "offended"?
Is he just aggressively argumentative abiout every aspect of this topic
and does he need to bend the will of every person in the world to his will?
Can he not just understand and accept that not everyone in the world
thinks the same and has the same range of opinions?
If not, why not?
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to that
person that you regard that person as a woman still.
I did not say that. You made it up.
If you had not made it up you would be able to quote the passage in
which (you say) I said it.
But we both know that you won't be able to do that.
Because of the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I don't think I've ever consciously even met a "trans man". Why do you
say I would want to "taunt" him?
I express my opinions and I notice that other many people do the same.
On 26/04/2025 15:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:17, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 00:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to >>>>>>>> be regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'.
Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect >>>>>>> being treated as.
The law is clear.
You mean now that the Supreme Court has clarified it?
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant
journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately nobody >>>>>> can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Well, there are ways of determining public opinion, unsurprisingly
called opinion polls, which have statistical maths behind them with
things known as confidence limits, so I don't think what you say is
correct.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, >>>>>> but that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Now we're into the realms of philosophy. What is 'right'? Is it
something ordained by a deity, dictated by a person, defined by public >>>>> opinion, or what? Perhaps you'd answer that.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be *treated*, but the public >>>>> may nevertheless *regard* them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman, less >>>> intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You can
legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the public" >>>> is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law. Where do
those opinions come from, though?
They may be irrational, but they may also be based on evidence and/or
experience. The problem arises when there is substantial, indeed
possibly probative, evidence to support them but the law insists otherwise. >>>
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most
of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the
north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that those >>> concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled
to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy
liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against individuals >> from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
But if society wants to, determined for example by a vote, why shouldn't it?
On 25/04/2025 09:30, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2025 19:16, JNugent wrote:
On 24/04/2025 02:25 PM, The Todal wrote:
[ ... ]
Starmer said that Duffield's comment that only women have a cervix was >>>> "something that shouldn't be said" and was "not right". He was
absolutely right, because a trans man is entitled to consider himself a >>>> man, and probably will have a cervix. I think she may have been too dim >>>> to understand that point and to understand that she was causing
unnecessary offence to trans men.
What about unnecessary offence to something much more like the
majority of the population? Or even "only" a signifocant minority?
Or don't they matter?
How could it possibly cause offence to anyone?
If I said that some women have testicles (eg because they are trans
women) would that upset you as a man? Would it make you cry? Could you
perhaps find a way of moving on with your life? Do you know anyone
who would be upset?
I appreciate that some people claim to be upset and offended for
political reasons. Thus, there are Jews who would say that when Israel
is criticised for slaughtering so many people in Gaza and Lebanon, it
feels very personal, they see Israel as part of their family, so it is
like watching their grandparents being beaten up by Nazi brownshirts.
Boo fucking hoo.
Inventing new words (like "transgender") is OK. Adding prefixes and
suffixes (like "trans" and "cis") is OK, provided we don't have to use
them. The objection is to redefining an existing, commonly used word,
like "women" to mean something different, as in the statement "Trans
women are women".
It's confusing, and the insistence that we all acquiesce in these
changes of meaning is offensive.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 18:16:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 12:56:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:37:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the >>>>>>>> latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are >>>>>>>> perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually >>>>>>> women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who >>>>>>> is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the >>>>>>> Forstater judgment.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf >>>>>>>
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
No comment on this then? On this topic only, you seem somehow perfectly >>>> happy to repeatedly make blatantly false or misleading statements.
I didn't say the author had no personal view. Although I actually do
not know if he agrees with Maya Forstater. You really don't have to
agree with your client, you know.
If you read the article, you might find out if he agrees with Forstater.
(Spoiler alert: he does.)
I said that the article was written neutrally.
... which is also utterly, utterly false. It is a partisan polemic.
It is only partisan in saying people are entitled to different views,
and that gender critical views, even when expressed, do not amount to
a hate crime.
On 26/04/2025 19:36, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m7483mF5a23U1@mid.individual.net...
When it comes to their own health, people know their own business best.
The Donald Trump/Elon Musk Healthcare Plan
Sack 'Em All !
It's also the Wes Streeting vision for the NHS. Don't bother spending
more money on it, don't bother with preventative medicine. Just try to
get people seen more quickly in A&E when they present with fulminating tumours.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 19:56:53 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 18:16:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 12:56:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:37:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the >>>>>>>>>> latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are >>>>>>>>>> perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually >>>>>>>>> women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who >>>>>>>>> is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the >>>>>>>>> Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
No comment on this then? On this topic only, you seem somehow perfectly >>>>>> happy to repeatedly make blatantly false or misleading statements.
I didn't say the author had no personal view. Although I actually do >>>>> not know if he agrees with Maya Forstater. You really don't have to
agree with your client, you know.
If you read the article, you might find out if he agrees with Forstater. >>>> (Spoiler alert: he does.)
I said that the article was written neutrally.
... which is also utterly, utterly false. It is a partisan polemic.
It is only partisan in saying people are entitled to different views,
and that gender critical views, even when expressed, do not amount to
a hate crime.
That description of it is so inaccurate that at this point I can only
assume you are engaged in some sort of elaborate practical joke.
I can see that you may not entirely agree with everything he says.
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 18:16:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 12:56:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:37:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the >>>>>>>>> latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are >>>>>>>>> perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually >>>>>>>> women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who >>>>>>>> is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the >>>>>>>> Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
No comment on this then? On this topic only, you seem somehow perfectly >>>>> happy to repeatedly make blatantly false or misleading statements.
I didn't say the author had no personal view. Although I actually do
not know if he agrees with Maya Forstater. You really don't have to
agree with your client, you know.
If you read the article, you might find out if he agrees with Forstater. >>> (Spoiler alert: he does.)
I said that the article was written neutrally.
... which is also utterly, utterly false. It is a partisan polemic.
It is only partisan in saying people are entitled to different views,
and that gender critical views, even when expressed, do not amount to
a hate crime.
That description of it is so inaccurate that at this point I can only
assume you are engaged in some sort of elaborate practical joke.
"Jeff Gaines" <jgnewsid@outlook.com> wrote in message >news:xn0p50ap84uf3s1003@news.individual.net...
Opinions come from lifetime experience, rarely based on fact (otherwise we >>would all have the same opinions)
Er no.
People tend to concentrate on those facts which support their opinions and >beliefs, and simply ignore those which don't.
What's known as "Confirmation Bias"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
Which is just one of a number of cognitive biases which allow people
to form and hold consistent opinions and beliefs in the face of
sometimes inconsistent and ever changing reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m7477fF55h1U3@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2025 09:02 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m71v85Foo0uU2@mid.individual.net...
On 25/04/2025 02:05 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m71dc9Fm03qU2@mid.individual.net...
On 24/04/2025 07:24 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6vc80Fc3iuU3@mid.individual.net...
On 23/04/2025 11:53 PM, billy bookcase wrote:Simply because you personally have never known of any children whose >>>>>>> mother or father died whilst they were still at Primary School doesn't >>>>>>> mean that such things never happened.
"JNugent" <jnugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m6t6moF1henU1@mid.individual.net...
...of an officious working assumption that children each have only one parent
(or only one who matters).
Or quite possibly, the working assumption concerning children attending
primary school, is that they will have at least one surviving parent in
situations, where the other parent may have died
What's that scratching sound?
it sounds like a scraper contacting the bottom of an empty barrel. >>>>>>>
I wonder: how wrong is it possible for you to be?
You have reached the limit of wrongness there.
But if you personally have known of children whose mother or father died >>>>> whilst they were still at Primary School, then how can you possibly
charachterise my citing of such cases, as scraping the bottom of a barrel ?
Such cases are outliers. They are not what general policy should be based upon.
Indeed So.
General policy should be based on what the majority of those affected find >>> most convenient, and acceptable. Both in terms of those clients using the system,
and those tasked with administering it, in as efficient a manner as possible.
No. We are here discussing factual situations.
Most children have two living parents. The outlier cases of half- or full orphans are
the tail, not the dog.
If it isn't already apparent to you, that *you are very much the outlier >>> yourself*, insofar as your stated preferences in this matter are concerned, >>> then it is my unfortunate duty to inform you, that this would clearly
appear to be very much the case.
Whatever.
I reserve the right to object to letters from school addressing the two of us as though
we are one.
But if the school assumed that the two of you *did* agree about your child's future, then what would have been the point in addressing you separately ?
Or on the other hand, if the school assumed that the two of you *didn't* agree
about your child's future, then what would be the point in addressing you jointly ?
Or as though one of us (I suspect, the male) has no parental rights.
But then neither has either parent the parental right, assuming both are still
alive, to disrupt their child's education, by deliberatley frustrating an important
decision, simply in furtherance of a disagreement with the other parent.
The only real point here, is that the school or the LA needed a decision at the end
of the day. Full stop.
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 19:56:53 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 18:16:54 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 12:56:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:I didn't say the author had no personal view. Although I actually do >>>>>> not know if he agrees with Maya Forstater. You really don't have to >>>>>> agree with your client, you know.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 00:37:45 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-25, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the >>>>>>>>>>> Equality Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the >>>>>>>>>>> latter holds a Gender Recognition Certificate. Although the latter >>>>>>>>>>> are still protected from sex discrimination insofar as they are >>>>>>>>>>> perceived to be a woman by the discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
A good essay on why the belief that trans women are not actually >>>>>>>>>> women is worthy of respect in a democratic society. By a lawyer, who >>>>>>>>>> is not actually taking sides in terms of belief but explains the >>>>>>>>>> Forstater judgment.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/morality-plays-lessons-forstater-peter-daly/
"Not taking sides"!? The author is Forstater's lawyer!
No comment on this then? On this topic only, you seem somehow perfectly >>>>>>> happy to repeatedly make blatantly false or misleading statements. >>>>>>
If you read the article, you might find out if he agrees with Forstater. >>>>> (Spoiler alert: he does.)
I said that the article was written neutrally.
... which is also utterly, utterly false. It is a partisan polemic.
It is only partisan in saying people are entitled to different views,
and that gender critical views, even when expressed, do not amount to
a hate crime.
That description of it is so inaccurate that at this point I can only
assume you are engaged in some sort of elaborate practical joke.
I can see that you may not entirely agree with everything he says.
Well that's the point. Yes, I do disagree with what he says - to put
it mildly - but if what he was saying really was what you claim he is
saying, then I wouldn't. Which illustrates how your description is
wildly inaccurate.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 19:32:21 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 15:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 26/04/2025 11:17, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 00:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to >>>>>>>>> be regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. >>>>>>>> Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect >>>>>>>> being treated as.
The law is clear.
You mean now that the Supreme Court has clarified it?
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant
journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately nobody >>>>>>> can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Well, there are ways of determining public opinion, unsurprisingly >>>>>> called opinion polls, which have statistical maths behind them with >>>>>> things known as confidence limits, so I don't think what you say is >>>>>> correct.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, >>>>>>> but that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Now we're into the realms of philosophy. What is 'right'? Is it
something ordained by a deity, dictated by a person, defined by public >>>>>> opinion, or what? Perhaps you'd answer that.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be *treated*, but the public >>>>>> may nevertheless *regard* them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman, less >>>>> intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You can >>>>> legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the public" >>>>> is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law. Where do
those opinions come from, though?
They may be irrational, but they may also be based on evidence and/or
experience. The problem arises when there is substantial, indeed
possibly probative, evidence to support them but the law insists otherwise.
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most >>>> of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the >>>> north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that those >>>> concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled >>>> to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy >>>> liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against individuals
from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
But if society wants to, determined for example by a vote, why shouldn't it?
Because it is a breach of human rights.
And not really a sensible choice for a referendum under our constitution.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 19:32:21 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 26/04/2025 15:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>>
On 26/04/2025 11:17, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 07:57, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 00:01, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:49, Norman Wells wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with >>>>>>>>> the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that >>>>>>>>>> only women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to >>>>>>>>> be regarded by society as a man.
You are confusing 'being regarded as' with 'being treated as'. >>>>>>>> Society will regard him/her as it wishes. The law can only affect >>>>>>>> being treated as.
The law is clear.
You mean now that the Supreme Court has clarified it?
Although "society" can be manipulated by spiteful and ignorant
journalists, politicians and children's authors, ultimately nobody >>>>>>> can say whether society has a majority opinion in any direction.
Well, there are ways of determining public opinion, unsurprisingly >>>>>> called opinion polls, which have statistical maths behind them with >>>>>> things known as confidence limits, so I don't think what you say is >>>>>> correct.
Tommy Robinson and his followers will regard refugees as they wish, >>>>>>> but that doesn't mean they are right to do so.
Now we're into the realms of philosophy. What is 'right'? Is it
something ordained by a deity, dictated by a person, defined by public >>>>>> opinion, or what? Perhaps you'd answer that.
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).
That may be how the law says they have to be *treated*, but the public >>>>>> may nevertheless *regard* them as unnatural freaks. You can't
legislate for the latter.
You can't legislate for the latter, no. Black people are subhuman, less >>>>> intelligent than white people, more likely to commit crimes. You can >>>>> legislate to protect black people from discrimination but "the public" >>>>> is always going to form its own opinions and defy the law. Where do
those opinions come from, though?
They may be irrational, but they may also be based on evidence and/or
experience. The problem arises when there is substantial, indeed
possibly probative, evidence to support them but the law insists otherwise.
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most >>>> of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the >>>> north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that those >>>> concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled >>>> to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy >>>> liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against individuals
from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
But if society wants to, determined for example by a vote, why shouldn't it?
Because it is a breach of human rights. And not really a sensible choice for a
referendum under our constitution.
On 26/04/2025 15:06, JNugent wrote:
On 25/04/2025 11:42 PM, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with the
facts?
Why do you try to answer a question (about an assertion YOU made) with
a question?
Please answer mine first.
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
Wjhat does that have to wiuth the question I asked you?
Please describe how and why the person you describe is "offended"?
Is he just aggressively argumentative abiout every aspect of this
topic and does he need to bend the will of every person in the world
to his will?
Can he not just understand and accept that not everyone in the world
thinks the same and has the same range of opinions?
If not, why not?
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to that
person that you regard that person as a woman still.
I did not say that. You made it up.
If you had not made it up you would be able to quote the passage in
which (you say) I said it.
But we both know that you won't be able to do that.
Because of the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I don't think I've ever consciously even met a "trans man". Why do you
say I would want to "taunt" him?
I express my opinions and I notice that other many people do the same.
So you don't understand the point. Glad you've made that clear.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 20:37:14 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-26, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
I can see that you may not entirely agree with everything he says.
Well that's the point. Yes, I do disagree with what he says - to put
it mildly - but if what he was saying really was what you claim he is
saying, then I wouldn't. Which illustrates how your description is
wildly inaccurate.
As a matter of interest, you would support the Forstater judgments then? Which of course were only on the right to express an opinion.
What does that ridiculous suggestion have to do with the requirement for simple and
straightforward courtesy in official correspendence?
On 26/04/2025 15:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most
of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the
north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that those >>> concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled >>> to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy
liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against
individuals
from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
But if society wants to, determined for example by a vote, why shouldn't
it?
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m751vnF9c2kU1@mid.individual.net...
What does that ridiculous suggestion have to do with the requirement for simple and
straightforward courtesy in official correspendence?
Which is where we came in, I believe.
If your idea of "courtesy" requires you, at times, to address
correspondnce to dead people, then one can only speculate as to
your standard of behaviour, when you are being intentionally
ill-mannered.
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone discriminates against them because they think they are man - provided that they would discriminate against any other man too, and, importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal; but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I shall have to read it more than once before I express an opinion. I admit to some surprise.
On 26/04/2025 15:44, Max Demian wrote:
Inventing new words (like "transgender") is OK. Adding prefixes and
suffixes (like "trans" and "cis") is OK, provided we don't have to use
them. The objection is to redefining an existing, commonly used word,
like "women" to mean something different, as in the statement "Trans
women are women".
It's confusing, and the insistence that we all acquiesce in these
changes of meaning is offensive.
The concept of trans women being women and trans men being men comes
from the Gender Recognition Act which was passed by our Parliament with
very little opposition.
But now you find these concepts offensive. Were you shocked at the time,
or were you watching the rugby?
On 26/04/2025 11:13, kat wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that only >>>> women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be regarded
by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to that
person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of the cervix. >>>
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't understand >>> the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that smear test >> that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them as a man and not >> invite them.
Excellent point!
If the hospital were to say "all those with cervixes please arrange an appointment for a smear test" you'd then have JK Rowling scornfully tweeting "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben?
Wimpund? Woomud?"
That would shame trans men into missing out on this vital health check but no matter. By shaming them, you encourage them to follow the path of righteousness,
confess to their error and embrace their true identity as women.
On 26 Apr 2025 at 15:24:49 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Apr 2025 at 10:57:33 BST, "Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote: >>>
As a matter of interest, we now know that a woman as defined by the Equality
Act does not include a trans woman, whether or not the latter holds a Gender
Recognition Certificate. Although the latter are still protected from sex >>>> discrimination insofar as they are perceived to be a woman by the
discriminator.
Supreme Court Judgement:
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Purportedly a trans rights response to the above. I really hope this is false
flag, surely real trans activists couldn't be this arrogant and demented? >>>
https://transrightsnow.uk/
"Gender Affirming treatment to be provided on an informed consent basis
for those over 18, and those under 18 who are Gillick competent."
This statement, in the "Healthcare" section is a little surprising, as
it effectively bans puberty blockers and hormone treatment for children
(which is necessary for an effective transition), unless "Gillick
competency" is dished out willy-nilly.
(Hey, does "Gillick competency" apply to all normally banned activities?
Would I be allowed to have sex with a child who is on puberty blockers?
Sound like a paedophile's charter. In fact, only a paedophile would want
to block puberty indefinitely.)
It clearly applies only to things they could lawfully consent to if Gillick competent most of which are things a parent (or in some cases both parents) could consent to if they are not Gillick competent. And there are some cases where a parent's wishes can override the wishes even of a Gillick competent child.
Does the above statement mean that parents *cannot* consent to hormone treatment for the purposes of gender transition for a non-Gillick competent child?
As to your question clearly the answer is no if they are under 16.
On 26/04/2025 19:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 15:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most >>>> of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the >>>> north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that
those
concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled >>>> to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy >>>> liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against
individuals
from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
But if society wants to, determined for example by a vote, why
shouldn't it?
In practise, "human rights" are whatever judges decide they are. A very slippery concept.
The Human Rights Act 1998 appears to extend the concept to large
companies and other artificial persons.
There was an interesting article about the act in The Independent
written by a barrister and professor of human rights law at King's
College London (unnamed):
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/human-rights-your-judgement-or- mine-1185171.html
On 27/04/2025 11:12, Max Demian wrote:
On 26/04/2025 19:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 15:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most >>>>> of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in
the
north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that
those
concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is
entitled
to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy >>>>> liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against
individuals
from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
But if society wants to, determined for example by a vote, why
shouldn't it?
In practise, "human rights" are whatever judges decide they are. A
very slippery concept.
Sort of, but not quite.
Human rights are a series of rules which often have to be balanced
against each other. For instance, the right to family life does not
trump all other considerations, and a person can still be extradited or imprisoned if the balance of society's needs against a person's rights produces that result. Ultimately it is for the judges to say whether the government has got it right.
To remove the Human Rights Act would be to opt for the Donald Trump
system of government. Whatever the Dear Leader says, is right. He can overrule courts and judges and he can decide what the policies of universities should be if they are to continue to receive federal aid.
On 26/04/2025 11:23, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:13, kat wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that
only women have a cervix?
the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be
regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed.
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to
that person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of
the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that
smear test that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them
as a man and not invite them.
Excellent point!
If the hospital were to say "all those with cervixes please arrange an
appointment for a smear test" you'd then have JK Rowling scornfully
tweeting "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone
help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
That would shame trans men into missing out on this vital health check
but no matter. By shaming them, you encourage them to follow the path
of righteousness, confess to their error and embrace their true
identity as women.
You do not actually need to call them anything or use that long-winded wording. Just record their real medical details, including biological
sex, and invite the person by name. Which they do.
But trans men need to remember they are biological women adn, ad long as
they have a cervix, not get upset by being reminded.
The same applies to all those men who insist they are women but have a prostate. Does that ever get removed during gender reassignment surgery?
On 26/04/2025 19:55, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 15:44, Max Demian wrote:
Inventing new words (like "transgender") is OK. Adding prefixes and
suffixes (like "trans" and "cis") is OK, provided we don't have to
use them. The objection is to redefining an existing, commonly used
word, like "women" to mean something different, as in the statement
"Trans women are women".
It's confusing, and the insistence that we all acquiesce in these
changes of meaning is offensive.
The concept of trans women being women and trans men being men comes
from the Gender Recognition Act which was passed by our Parliament
with very little opposition.
But now you find these concepts offensive. Were you shocked at the
time, or were you watching the rugby?
I have always considered that whether a person is a man or a woman is determined by whether they are XX or XY (modulo a few rare medical conditions). Don't you?
Parliament sometimes makes mistakes.
The same applies to all those men who insist they are women but have a prostate.
Does that ever get removed during gender reassignment surgery?
Gillick competency allows a girl under 16 to be prescribed contraceptives, which, in practice, implies that she will be having consensual sex, which
is illegal.
On 27/04/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
Gillick competency allows a girl under 16 to be prescribed contraceptives, >> which, in practice, implies that she will be having consensual sex, which
is illegal.
You might want to clarify what is illegal there.
On 27 Apr 2025 at 11:20:12 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
The same applies to all those men who insist they are women but have a
prostate.
Does that ever get removed during gender reassignment surgery?
Never say never, but it would be crazy, pointless, have lots of bad side effects and be somewhat dangerous. But especially it would be pointless.
On 27 Apr 2025 at 14:15:36 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 27/04/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
Gillick competency allows a girl under 16 to be prescribed contraceptives, >>> which, in practice, implies that she will be having consensual sex, which >>> is illegal.
You might want to clarify what is illegal there.
Certainly in the early days of prescribing or supplying contraceptives to under 15s there was a fear expressed that what the prescriber were doing might
be illegal, and that they might be prosecuted. Whether the law has been clarified or whether it is merely that complacency has crept in I really have no idea.
On 27/04/2025 13:25, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2025 at 11:20:12 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
The same applies to all those men who insist they are women but have a
prostate.
Does that ever get removed during gender reassignment surgery?
Never say never, but it would be crazy, pointless, have lots of bad side
effects and be somewhat dangerous. But especially it would be pointless.
I think one method is to slit the penis lengthways and stuff it in the abdomen to form an artificial vagina. I don't know how good it is. The prostate might get in the way. Having your prostate removed usually
causes impotence (something I don't think the surgeons mention); I don't
know what else it does.
On 26/04/2025 19:32, Norman Wells wrote:
On 26/04/2025 15:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2025 at 11:45:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
I gave three examples recently of groups that are responsible for most >>>> of the pickpocketing in London (Romanians), grooming young girls in the >>>> north of England (Pakistanis), and theft and anti-social behaviour
wherever they go (Travellers). If those correlations stand up to
scrutiny, which I think they almost certainly do, it's absurd that
those
concerned should be protected from discrimination. Society is entitled >>>> to judge and if necessary condemn, not be forced into some wishy-washy >>>> liberal acceptance that we're all as nice as each other.
Possibly so, but society is not entitled to discriminate against
individuals
from those groups in the absence of evidence against that individual.
But if society wants to, determined for example by a vote, why
shouldn't it?
In practise, "human rights" are whatever judges decide they are. A very slippery concept.
I'm choosing a random post to follow up with this poignant article in
the Guardian about the effect of the Supreme Court judgment (widely misunderstood in my opinion) and society's attitudes now towards trans people.
I'd say that none of these trans people deserve to be viewed with fear
and suspicion or to have their lives ruined by pedantic demands for them
to leave certain toilets. Do these people fit the image of the predatory trans woman who is intent on molesting innocent young women? Maybe JK
Rowling should meet some of them and get a sense of perspective.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/27/older-trans-women- shocked-by-supreme-court-ruling
On 27/04/2025 11:52, The Todal wrote:
I'm choosing a random post to follow up with this poignant article in
the Guardian about the effect of the Supreme Court judgment (widely
misunderstood in my opinion) and society's attitudes now towards trans
people.
I'd say that none of these trans people deserve to be viewed with fear
and suspicion or to have their lives ruined by pedantic demands for
them to leave certain toilets. Do these people fit the image of the
predatory trans woman who is intent on molesting innocent young women?
Maybe JK Rowling should meet some of them and get a sense of perspective.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/27/older-trans-women-
shocked-by-supreme-court-ruling
No-one's going to be asked to drop their kecks to prove their sex when entering a public convenience. Provided they look convincingly like the
sex they want to be, no-on will be any the wiser.
On 27 Apr 2025 at 14:15:36 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 27/04/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
Gillick competency allows a girl under 16 to be prescribed contraceptives, >>> which, in practice, implies that she will be having consensual sex, which >>> is illegal.
You might want to clarify what is illegal there.
Certainly in the early days of prescribing or supplying contraceptives to under 15s there was a fear expressed that what the prescriber were doing might
be illegal, and that they might be prosecuted. Whether the law has been clarified or whether it is merely that complacency has crept in I really have no idea.
On 27/04/2025 15:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2025 at 14:15:36 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 27/04/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
Gillick competency allows a girl under 16 to be prescribed contraceptives, >>>> which, in practice, implies that she will be having consensual sex, which >>>> is illegal.
You might want to clarify what is illegal there.
Certainly in the early days of prescribing or supplying contraceptives to
under 15s there was a fear expressed that what the prescriber were doing might
be illegal, and that they might be prosecuted. Whether the law has been
clarified or whether it is merely that complacency has crept in I really have
no idea.
The worry in those early days was that children might not have the
capacity to make decisions about their fertility or their contraception
and the doctors might be under an obligation to consult their parents. Fortunately Victoria Gillick lost her case.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental responsibility for a child.
In any case, this isn't new. This is how it's been done for decades. It's
not recent political correctness or wokery. When I was at school, that was how letters about me were addressed to my parents. Complaining that it's
some kind of attempt to downplay the role of parents in a traditional
nuclear family is just plain ignorant.
You could, I suppose, argue that it's unnecessarily formal, and putting the name(s) of the parent(s) or guardian(s) on the letter would be more user-friendly. But that does significantly increase the administrative burden. It needs the database of names to be kept up to date at all times. And that's not always easy. For children in care, the names may actually change from week to week. Even for children in a more stable situation, it's likely that the names of at least some of the parents/guardians of any given school class will change over the course of a term.
And it's not just the possibility of causing inadvertant offence by using
the wrong name (eg, addressing a letter to Mr and Mrs Smith when Mr Smith died las month, or Mrs Smith is now the ex-Mrs Smith). The real issue is
that having the wrong name on the letter may cause it not to reach someone who really, really needs to read it. Or, possibly, cause it to be read by someone who has no authority to read it. That's a non-trivial GDPR and child protection risk, and one that schools, healthcare providers, etc simply cannot afford to take just because some people get their knickers in a twist over a formally addressed letter.
Mark
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent
of their erogenous zones.
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent
of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all
relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined >> definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent
of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined definition in law.
On 16/04/2025 14:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone discriminates >> against them because they think they are man - provided that they would
discriminate against any other man too, and, importantly, provided that that >> discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the appeal; but as
to my impression of the judgment as statutory interpretation I shall have to >> read it more than once before I express an opinion. I admit to some surprise.
I'm choosing a random post to follow up with this poignant article in
the Guardian about the effect of the Supreme Court judgment (widely >misunderstood in my opinion) and society's attitudes now towards trans >people.
I'd say that none of these trans people deserve to be viewed with fear
and suspicion or to have their lives ruined by pedantic demands for them
to leave certain toilets. Do these people fit the image of the predatory >trans woman who is intent on molesting innocent young women? Maybe JK
Rowling should meet some of them and get a sense of perspective.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental responsibility for a child.
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:52:08 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 16/04/2025 14:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man -
provided that they would discriminate against any other man too,
and, importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the
appeal; but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory
interpretation I shall have to read it more than once before I
express an opinion. I admit to some surprise.
I'm choosing a random post to follow up with this poignant article in
the Guardian about the effect of the Supreme Court judgment (widely >>misunderstood in my opinion) and society's attitudes now towards trans >>people.
I'd say that none of these trans people deserve to be viewed with fear
and suspicion or to have their lives ruined by pedantic demands for them
to leave certain toilets. Do these people fit the image of the predatory >>trans woman who is intent on molesting innocent young women? Maybe JK >>Rowling should meet some of them and get a sense of perspective.
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument (including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like
Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than
Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
On 28 Apr 2025 at 10:44:43 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent >>>> of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all >>> relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined >>> definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
I have read section 9. It describes some classes of touching where the offence
is more serious in 9.2, but does not define the other classes of sexual touching but mentions the penalties for these in 9.3. So I think you are mistaken.
On 28/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2025 at 10:44:43 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent >>>>> of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all >>>> relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined
definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
I have read section 9. It describes some classes of touching where the offence
is more serious in 9.2, but does not define the other classes of sexual
touching but mentions the penalties for these in 9.3. So I think you are
mistaken.
Yes, it is not an exhaustive list, but it is a predetermined definition
in law of some types of sexual touching.
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal
mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with
parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
On 24/04/2025 14:05, Pamela wrote:
On 09:33 24 Apr 2025, The Todal said:
On 23/04/2025 18:08, Pamela wrote:
It would be fascinating to understand the psychology of Labour MPs
and others who got drawn into supporting some of the demands of
extreme trans activists.
Can you name these delinquent MPs and summarise their views? Only
then might we try to understand the "psychology".
To answer your request ... Keir Starmer is one such MP when he gave
a very different definition of "woman" to that of the recent SC and
also disagreed bitterly with Rosie Duffield over women and cervixes.
Then there are those Labour MPs who voted against using Section 35
to halt the Scottish government's unconstitutional gender law. And
not forgetting the current "pro-trans plotters" which include Chris
Bryant and Angela Eagle. Many others too.
You would already have known those, so I'm not sure of the purpose
in asking for names.
I was assuming you had in mind "demands of extreme trans activists"
but actually you have named people who have made perfectly reasonable statements that are in no way extremist.
So maybe the extremist is you?
Rosie Duffield is probably seen as a heroine by some people but
actually she has a naive and ill-informed attitude to trans issues.
You can read the Wikipedia article which sets out how she antagonised
her staff with her various statements and was accused of homophobia
not only transphobia.
Starmer said that Duffield's comment that only women have a cervix
was "something that shouldn't be said" and was "not right". He was absolutely right, because a trans man is entitled to consider himself
a man, and probably will have a cervix. I think she may have been too
dim to understand that point and to understand that she was causing unnecessary offence to trans men. Eventually she flounced out of the
party in disgust but her reasons were actually quite sensible and had
little or nothing to do with trans issues. Quote: In her resignation
letter, she criticised Starmer's "cruel and unnecessary policies",
"sleaze, nepotism and apparent avarice", and "hypocrisy" over his
acceptance of gifts. She also described it as "frankly embarrassing"
that he had appointed newly elected MPs as junior ministers.
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:52:08 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>On 16/04/2025 14:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man -
provided that they would discriminate against any other man too,
and, importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the
appeal; but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory
interpretation I shall have to read it more than once before I
express an opinion. I admit to some surprise.
I'm choosing a random post to follow up with this poignant article in
the Guardian about the effect of the Supreme Court judgment (widely >>>misunderstood in my opinion) and society's attitudes now towards trans >>>people.
I'd say that none of these trans people deserve to be viewed with fear >>>and suspicion or to have their lives ruined by pedantic demands for them >>>to leave certain toilets. Do these people fit the image of the predatory >>>trans woman who is intent on molesting innocent young women? Maybe JK >>>Rowling should meet some of them and get a sense of perspective.
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans >> people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like
Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate >> see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than
Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which >> is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
On 27/04/2025 15:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2025 at 14:15:36 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 27/04/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
Gillick competency allows a girl under 16 to be prescribed
contraceptives,
which, in practice, implies that she will be having consensual sex,
which
is illegal.
You might want to clarify what is illegal there.
Certainly in the early days of prescribing or supplying contraceptives to
under 15s there was a fear expressed that what the prescriber were
doing might
be illegal, and that they might be prosecuted. Whether the law has been
clarified or whether it is merely that complacency has crept in I
really have
no idea.
The worry in those early days was that children might not have the
capacity to make decisions about their fertility or their contraception
and the doctors might be under an obligation to consult their parents. Fortunately Victoria Gillick lost her case.
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental responsibility for a child.
In any case, this isn't new. This is how it's been done for decades.
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 11:52:08 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>> On 16/04/2025 14:08, Roger Hayter wrote:
Equally, a trans *woman* can claim discrimination if someone
discriminates against them because they think they are man -
provided that they would discriminate against any other man too,
and, importantly, provided that that discrimination is not justified.
I think the Scottish Ministers supported the trans side of the
appeal; but as to my impression of the judgment as statutory
interpretation I shall have to read it more than once before I
express an opinion. I admit to some surprise.
I'm choosing a random post to follow up with this poignant article in
the Guardian about the effect of the Supreme Court judgment (widely
misunderstood in my opinion) and society's attitudes now towards trans
people.
I'd say that none of these trans people deserve to be viewed with fear
and suspicion or to have their lives ruined by pedantic demands for them >>> to leave certain toilets. Do these people fit the image of the predatory >>> trans woman who is intent on molesting innocent young women? Maybe JK
Rowling should meet some of them and get a sense of perspective.
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans >> people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like
Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate >> see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than
Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which >> is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent
of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all
relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined >> definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
On 28 Apr 2025 at 12:19:04 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 10:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2025 at 10:44:43 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>
On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent >>>>>> of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all >>>>> relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined
definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
I have read section 9. It describes some classes of touching where the offence
is more serious in 9.2, but does not define the other classes of sexual
touching but mentions the penalties for these in 9.3. So I think you are >>> mistaken.
Yes, it is not an exhaustive list, but it is a predetermined definition >> in law of some types of sexual touching.
Not exactly. It is a list of particular types of sexual touching that are much
more serious offences than sexual touching otherwise unspecified.
On 27 Apr 2025 at 11:20:12 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
The same applies to all those men who insist they are women but have a
prostate.
Does that ever get removed during gender reassignment surgery?
Never say never, but it would be crazy, pointless, have lots of bad side effects and be somewhat dangerous. But especially it would be pointless.
On 28 Apr 2025 at 11:26:36 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think
of trans people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to
consider those like Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on
the other side of the debate see all trans people through the lens
of Bryson and Thomas rather than Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not
one which is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
At first sight I see your point. Indeed *I* have absolutely no reason to discriminate against trans women.
But women being wary of any unknown man, including people who have
reached maturity as men and then changed gender, is not bigotry but deeply-engrained self-protection. It is not that transwomen are more threatening than men who continue to be men, just that it is not
convincing that they are all less of a risk.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:44:43 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent >>>> of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all >>> relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined >>> definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
It lists some specific actions for the purposes of "sexual activity", which is a different offence to sexual assault (as defined in section 3). So if
the touching involves the specific actions listed in 9.(2), then it's potentially sexual activity, but even if it doesn't then it may still be sexual assault.
However, both offences still require the touching to be "sexual", which
isn't specifically defined.
On 27/04/2025 11:20, kat wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:23, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:13, kat wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself with the facts?
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion that only >>>>>> women have a cervix?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to be >>>>> regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed. >>>>>
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to that >>>>> person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because of the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't understand
the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that smear test
that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them as a man and not >>>> invite them.
Excellent point!
If the hospital were to say "all those with cervixes please arrange an
appointment for a smear test" you'd then have JK Rowling scornfully tweeting
"I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. >>> Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
That would shame trans men into missing out on this vital health check but no
matter. By shaming them, you encourage them to follow the path of
righteousness, confess to their error and embrace their true identity as women.
You do not actually need to call them anything or use that long-winded
wording. Just record their real medical details, including biological sex, and
invite the person by name. Which they do.
But trans men need to remember they are biological women adn, ad long as they
have a cervix, not get upset by being reminded.
The same applies to all those men who insist they are women but have a
prostate. Does that ever get removed during gender reassignment surgery? >>
I don't disagree with you. But not everyone gets a personal invitation to a check-up. There's lots of publicity about the need to check for symptoms of bowel cancer. Or prostate cancer. Directed at the community at large. It is possible, perhaps, that trans men would forget that they still have female body
parts that can cause major health problems.
On 28/04/2025 12:14, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal
mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with >>> with parental responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
A single mother, or one whose husband is abroad, might think she has to
get hold of the father before opening it.
On 27/04/2025 19:15, The Todal wrote:
On 27/04/2025 15:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2025 at 14:15:36 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 27/04/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
Gillick competency allows a girl under 16 to be prescribed
contraceptives,
which, in practice, implies that she will be having consensual sex,
which
is illegal.
You might want to clarify what is illegal there.
Certainly in the early days of prescribing or supplying
contraceptives to
under 15s there was a fear expressed that what the prescriber were
doing might
be illegal, and that they might be prosecuted. Whether the law has been
clarified or whether it is merely that complacency has crept in I
really have
no idea.
The worry in those early days was that children might not have the
capacity to make decisions about their fertility or their
contraception and the doctors might be under an obligation to consult
their parents. Fortunately Victoria Gillick lost her case.
The *worry* was that young people would have sex anyway, and parents
didn't want their dahling children to end up on the sex offender's
register which could harm their employability in future.
On 2025-04-28, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2025 at 11:26:36 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think
of trans people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to
consider those like Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on
the other side of the debate see all trans people through the lens
of Bryson and Thomas rather than Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not
one which is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
At first sight I see your point. Indeed *I* have absolutely no reason to
discriminate against trans women.
But women being wary of any unknown man, including people who have
reached maturity as men and then changed gender, is not bigotry but
deeply-engrained self-protection. It is not that transwomen are more
threatening than men who continue to be men, just that it is not
convincing that they are all less of a risk.
You're right that it is not that "transwomen are more threatening than
men" - it is that they are much *less* threatening than men, because
they are not men. Your "not convincing" is just an expression of your
own prejudice.
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of >> addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental >> responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
What would be so hard about that? Surely school budgets can stand the expense of an extra typed character per envelope?
On 28 Apr 2025 at 16:06:40 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2025 at 11:26:36 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think
of trans people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to
consider those like Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on
the other side of the debate see all trans people through the lens
of Bryson and Thomas rather than Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not
one which is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like >>>> the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
At first sight I see your point. Indeed *I* have absolutely no reason to >>> discriminate against trans women.
But women being wary of any unknown man, including people who have
reached maturity as men and then changed gender, is not bigotry but
deeply-engrained self-protection. It is not that transwomen are more
threatening than men who continue to be men, just that it is not
convincing that they are all less of a risk.
You're right that it is not that "transwomen are more threatening than
men" - it is that they are much *less* threatening than men, because
they are not men. Your "not convincing" is just an expression of your
own prejudice.
My prejudice is really, really irrelevant. It is the feelings of many
women that count.
And your suggestion that men who have had no surgical or medical transition (at least) are in some way less threatening because they believe they are women? You would need to provide evidence for a proposition with no face validity.
On 28 Apr 2025 at 16:06:40 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2025 at 11:26:36 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think
of trans people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to
consider those like Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on
the other side of the debate see all trans people through the lens
of Bryson and Thomas rather than Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not
one which is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like >>>> the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
At first sight I see your point. Indeed *I* have absolutely no reason to >>> discriminate against trans women.
But women being wary of any unknown man, including people who have
reached maturity as men and then changed gender, is not bigotry but
deeply-engrained self-protection. It is not that transwomen are more
threatening than men who continue to be men, just that it is not
convincing that they are all less of a risk.
You're right that it is not that "transwomen are more threatening than
men" - it is that they are much *less* threatening than men, because
they are not men. Your "not convincing" is just an expression of your
own prejudice.
My prejudice is really, really irrelevant. It is the feelings of many women that count.
And your suggestion that men who have had no surgical or medical transition (at least) are in some way less threatening because they believe they are women? You would need to provide evidence for a proposition with no face validity.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m79684FtderU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to beIt's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>>
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old
were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were
born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MF-research-note-Source-of-family-breakdown.pdf
What would be so hard about that? Surely school budgets can stand the expense
of an extra typed character per envelope?
When in *reality*, school budgets would need to stand the expense of sending out an additional 46% extra typed letters. Assuming the correct second addresses were even on file
On 2025-04-28, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2025 at 16:06:40 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 28 Apr 2025 at 11:26:36 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument >>>>>> (including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think >>>>>> of trans people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to
consider those like Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on >>>>>> the other side of the debate see all trans people through the lens >>>>>> of Bryson and Thomas rather than Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not
one which is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like >>>>> the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for >>>>> those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
At first sight I see your point. Indeed *I* have absolutely no reason to >>>> discriminate against trans women.
But women being wary of any unknown man, including people who have
reached maturity as men and then changed gender, is not bigotry but
deeply-engrained self-protection. It is not that transwomen are more
threatening than men who continue to be men, just that it is not
convincing that they are all less of a risk.
You're right that it is not that "transwomen are more threatening than
men" - it is that they are much *less* threatening than men, because
they are not men. Your "not convincing" is just an expression of your
own prejudice.
My prejudice is really, really irrelevant. It is the feelings of many
women that count.
Oh, so, hypothetically speaking, if bigotry is popular that makes it ok?
And your suggestion that men who have had no surgical or medical transition >> (at least) are in some way less threatening because they believe they are
women? You would need to provide evidence for a proposition with no face
validity.
No, things are not true just because you say so.
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m79684FtderU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>>>It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old
were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were
born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a school to decide
on the biological impossible belief that some have only one.
You may try to wriggle around that (though I hope you won't), but you will not succeed.
https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MF-research-note-Source-of-family-breakdown.pdf
What would be so hard about that? Surely school budgets can stand the expense
of an extra typed character per envelope?
When in *reality*, school budgets would need to stand the expense of sending >> out an additional 46% extra typed letters. Assuming the correct second
addresses were even on file
One letter, per exercise, per child.
On 29/04/2025 08:48 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is
to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so >>>>>>> wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard
formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person
with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old >>>> were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were >>>> born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to
a school to decide
on the biological impossible belief that some have only one.
Which they don't.
Parthogenesis?
You may try to wriggle around that (though I hope you won't), but you
will not succeed.
Why should anyone ever feel the need to "wriggle out of" any of your
increasingly desperate non-sequiteurs ?
You don't actually know what a non-sequitur is, do you? :-)
https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MF-research-note-Source-of-family-breakdown.pdf
What would be so hard about that? Surely school budgets can stand
the expense
of an extra typed character per envelope?
When in *reality*, school budgets would need to stand the expense of
sending
out an additional 46% extra typed letters. Assuming the correct second >>>> addresses were even on file
One letter, per exercise, per child.
Which you are insisting should be addressed to *both parents*; when in
46% of cases, both parents were *not* in fact, living* at that address.
One letter, to both "parents". Instead of one letter to one parent.
One typed character difference.
Whereas in 100% of cases, it can be assumed anyway, that at least one
parent, *was* living at that address.
46%...............100%..............spot the difference, can you ?
Do you know how to spell
Or maybe maths isn't your strong suit, either ?
I'd have said that anyone who takes exception to the "extra cost" of
adding ONE character (an "s") to the salutation on a letter is having difficulty with addition and subtraction.
But in any case, why should it be perfectly OK to deliberately
misaddress letters to the children of married couples but totally unacceptable to send a letter for the attention of both estranged
parents (whether married, formerly married or never married) of another child?
The child, despite the insistence of some on the concept of miraculous conception, has TWO parents and a school has no reason to assume that
one of them has no interest in the child's educational progress.
The only exception to that would be in cases where one parent (of
necessity, the mother) does not know the identity of the father. Not impossible.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old
were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were
born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a school to decide
on the biological impossible belief that some have only one.
Which they don't.
You may try to wriggle around that (though I hope you won't), but you will not succeed.
Why should anyone ever feel the need to "wriggle out of" any of your increasingly desperate non-sequiteurs ?
https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MF-research-note-Source-of-family-breakdown.pdf
What would be so hard about that? Surely school budgets can stand the expense
of an extra typed character per envelope?
When in *reality*, school budgets would need to stand the expense of sending
out an additional 46% extra typed letters. Assuming the correct second
addresses were even on file
One letter, per exercise, per child.
Which you are insisting should be addressed to *both parents*; when in
46% of cases, both parents were *not* in fact, living* at that address.
Whereas in 100% of cases, it can be assumed anyway, that at least one
parent, *was* living at that address.
46%...............100%..............spot the difference, can you ?
Or maybe maths isn't your strong suit, either ?
On 29/04/2025 08:48 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old >>>> were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were >>>> born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a
school to decide
on the biological impossible belief that some have only one.
Which they don't.
Parthogenesis?
You may try to wriggle around that (though I hope you won't), but you will >>> not succeed.
Why should anyone ever feel the need to "wriggle out of" any of your
increasingly desperate non-sequiteurs ?
You don't actually know what a non-sequitur is, do you? :-)
https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MF-research-note-Source-of-family-breakdown.pdf
What would be so hard about that? Surely school budgets can stand the expense
of an extra typed character per envelope?
When in *reality*, school budgets would need to stand the expense of sending
out an additional 46% extra typed letters. Assuming the correct second >>>> addresses were even on file
One letter, per exercise, per child.
Which you are insisting should be addressed to *both parents*; when in
46% of cases, both parents were *not* in fact, living* at that address.
One letter, to both "parents". Instead of one letter to one parent.
One typed character difference.
Whereas in 100% of cases, it can be assumed anyway, that at least one
parent, *was* living at that address.
46%...............100%..............spot the difference, can you ?
Do you know how to spell
Or maybe maths isn't your strong suit, either ?
I'd have said that anyone who takes exception to the "extra cost" of
adding ONE character (an "s") to the salutation on a letter is having difficulty with addition and subtraction.
But in any case, why should it be perfectly OK to deliberately
misaddress letters to the children of married couples but totally unacceptable to send a letter for the attention of both estranged
parents (whether married, formerly married or never married) of another child?
The child, despite the insistence of some on the concept of miraculous conception, has TWO parents and a school has no reason to assume that
one of them has no interest in the child's educational progress.
The only exception to that would be in cases where one parent (of
necessity, the mother) does not know the identity of the father. Not impossible.
On 28/04/2025 13:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:44:43 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
wrote:
On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent >>>>> of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary
taking all
relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a
predetermined
definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
It lists some specific actions for the purposes of "sexual activity",
which
is a different offence to sexual assault (as defined in section 3). So if
the touching involves the specific actions listed in 9.(2), then it's
potentially sexual activity, but even if it doesn't then it may still be
sexual assault.
However, both offences still require the touching to be "sexual", which
isn't specifically defined.
What does Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do then?
On 28/04/2025 14:48, Max Demian wrote:
On 27/04/2025 19:15, The Todal wrote:
On 27/04/2025 15:43, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2025 at 14:15:36 BST, "Nick Finnigan" <nix@genie.co.uk>
wrote:
On 27/04/2025 11:34, Max Demian wrote:
Gillick competency allows a girl under 16 to be prescribed
contraceptives,
which, in practice, implies that she will be having consensual
sex, which
is illegal.
You might want to clarify what is illegal there.
Certainly in the early days of prescribing or supplying
contraceptives to
under 15s there was a fear expressed that what the prescriber were
doing might
be illegal, and that they might be prosecuted. Whether the law has been >>>> clarified or whether it is merely that complacency has crept in I
really have
no idea.
The worry in those early days was that children might not have the
capacity to make decisions about their fertility or their
contraception and the doctors might be under an obligation to consult
their parents. Fortunately Victoria Gillick lost her case.
The *worry* was that young people would have sex anyway, and parents
didn't want their dahling children to end up on the sex offender's
register which could harm their employability in future.
The Gillick precedent does not protect children from being prosecuted
for underage sex.
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the
mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who
believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be
tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any
parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to
acquire such rights?
On 29 Apr 2025 at 11:37:25 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
The child, despite the insistence of some on the concept of miraculous
conception, has TWO parents and a school has no reason to assume that
one of them has no interest in the child's educational progress.
The only exception to that would be in cases where one parent (of
necessity, the mother) does not know the identity of the father. Not
impossible.
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the
mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who
believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be
tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any
parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to
acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High
Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and
I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
On 28/04/2025 15:29, Norman Wells wrote:
On 28/04/2025 13:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:44:43 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk>
wrote:
On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent >>>>>> of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary
taking all
relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a
predetermined
definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
It lists some specific actions for the purposes of "sexual activity",
which
is a different offence to sexual assault (as defined in section 3). So if >>> the touching involves the specific actions listed in 9.(2), then it's
potentially sexual activity, but even if it doesn't then it may still be >>> sexual assault.
However, both offences still require the touching to be "sexual", which
isn't specifically defined.
What does Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do then?
--quote--
78“Sexual”
[F1For the purposes of this Part ([F2except sections 15A [F3, 66B to
66D] and 71 ]), penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if
a reasonable person would consider that—
(a)whatever its circumstances or any person’s purpose in relation to it,
it is because of its nature sexual, or
(b)because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its
circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both)
it is sexual.]
--quote--
Ah, the mythical "reasonable person".
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the
mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who
believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be
tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any
parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to
acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High
Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and
I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 13:35:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and
Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance.
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
The choir has the simple solution of changing the description of its membership and writing a justification of why its membership criteria are proportionate to a legitimate end, justifying the indirect discrimination against other men and women.
Ditto the WI if it wants to continue admitting trans women.
My criticism of the EHRC guidance is that it fails to explain this.
To that extent I agree with you.
On 29/04/2025 08:48 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old >>>> were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were >>>> born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a school to
decide
on the biological impossible belief that some have only one.
Which they don't.
Parthogenesis?
You may try to wriggle around that (though I hope you won't), but you will not
succeed.
Why should anyone ever feel the need to "wriggle out of" any of your
increasingly desperate non-sequiteurs ?
You don't actually know what a non-sequitur is, do you? :-)
https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MF-research-note-Source-of-family-breakdown.pdf
What would be so hard about that? Surely school budgets can stand the expense
of an extra typed character per envelope?
When in *reality*, school budgets would need to stand the expense of sending
out an additional 46% extra typed letters. Assuming the correct second >>>> addresses were even on file
One letter, per exercise, per child.
Which you are insisting should be addressed to *both parents*; when in
46% of cases, both parents were *not* in fact, living* at that address.
One letter, to both "parents". Instead of one letter to one parent.
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance.
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
On 28/04/2025 02:31 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/04/2025 12:14, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal
mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with
with parental responsibility for a child.
Only a parent has parental responsibility.
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 13:35:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and
Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance. >>>
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
The choir has the simple solution of changing the description of its
membership and writing a justification of why its membership criteria are
proportionate to a legitimate end, justifying the indirect discrimination
against other men and women.
But they're not discriminating, and they don't want to discriminate.
The EHRC is telling them that they should start discriminating.
Ditto the WI if it wants to continue admitting trans women.
My criticism of the EHRC guidance is that it fails to explain this.
To that extent I agree with you.
The main problem is that everyone involved hasn't publically apologised
and resigned.
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 13:35:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and
Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance. >>>
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
The choir has the simple solution of changing the description of its
membership and writing a justification of why its membership criteria are
proportionate to a legitimate end, justifying the indirect discrimination
against other men and women.
But they're not discriminating, and they don't want to discriminate.
The EHRC is telling them that they should start discriminating.
On 28/04/2025 09:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of >> addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental >> responsibility for a child.
In any case, this isn't new. This is how it's been done for decades.
Weren't letters routinely addressed "To the parent or guardian of..."?
On 28/04/2025 13:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:44:43 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent >>>>> of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all >>>> relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined
definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
It lists some specific actions for the purposes of "sexual activity", which >> is a different offence to sexual assault (as defined in section 3). So if
the touching involves the specific actions listed in 9.(2), then it's
potentially sexual activity, but even if it doesn't then it may still be
sexual assault.
However, both offences still require the touching to be "sexual", which
isn't specifically defined.
What does Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do then?
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:29:13 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 13:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:44:43 +0100, Nick Finnigan <nix@genie.co.uk> wrote: >>>> On 28/04/2025 10:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 15:55:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 24/04/2025 23:17, Nick Finnigan wrote:
The latter may count as sexual assault:
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if
(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),
(b)the touching is sexual,
(c)B does not consent to the touching, and
(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/3
What makes a touch "sexual"? People must vary enormously in the extent >>>>>> of their erogenous zones.
That's question of fact, to be decided by a court if necessary taking all >>>>> relevant circumstances into account, rather than subject to a predetermined
definition in law.
However, it is defined for sexual activity with (or by) a child
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/9 (and /13).
It lists some specific actions for the purposes of "sexual activity", which >>> is a different offence to sexual assault (as defined in section 3). So if >>> the touching involves the specific actions listed in 9.(2), then it's
potentially sexual activity, but even if it doesn't then it may still be >>> sexual assault.
However, both offences still require the touching to be "sexual", which
isn't specifically defined.
What does Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do then?
It invokes the non-binary person on the Beckenham Borisbus. Specifically, it says that activity is "sexual" if a "reasonable person" considers it to be sexual. And that - considering the position of a reasonable person - is precisely the role of the court. "Sexual" isn't defined in legislation, rather, the court is instructed on how it should be determined.
Mark
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance.
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans >> people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like
Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate >> see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than
Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which >> is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
On 29/04/2025 17:14, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 13:35:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and >>>> Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance. >>>>
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
The choir has the simple solution of changing the description of its
membership and writing a justification of why its membership criteria are >>> proportionate to a legitimate end, justifying the indirect discrimination >>> against other men and women.
But they're not discriminating, and they don't want to discriminate.
The EHRC is telling them that they should start discriminating.
Quite. What the choir calls itself is down to it alone. It breaks no
law if it calls itself a gay male choir but admits trans men or even women.
Besides, guidelines are only guidelines. They can be ignored with impunity.
Anyway, *my* guideline is that it's the EHRC that needs to change its
name. It's far too confusable with the ECHR, and gives the false
impression that it's official.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:26:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans >>> people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like >>> Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate
see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than
Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which >>> is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
What's the word for people who treat an entire group of people as if they
are all like the best member of that group?
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the
mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who
believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be >>>> tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any
parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to
acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High
Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and
I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a separate >> application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility automatically.
On 28/04/2025 02:31 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/04/2025 12:14, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so
wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal
mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one
person with
with parental responsibility for a child.
Only a parent has parental responsibility.
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m79684FtderU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so
wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal
mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with
parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old
were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were
born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a
school to decide on the biological impossible belief that some have only
one.
You may try to wriggle around that (though I hope you won't), but you
will not succeed.
On 29/04/2025 13:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and
Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance.
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
I think the ex Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption has gone some way to correcting the widespread misconceptions about the SC judgment but I'm
still waiting for a decent analysis by a good barrister. The fact that
you *can* discriminate does not create an obligation that you *must* discriminate.
quote
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-sumption-trans-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html
Former Supreme Court judge Jonathan Sumption has warned that
organisations are potentially misinterpreting the landmark ruling that defined women by biology earlier this week.
Lord Sumption told BBC Radio 4’s PM programme that, contrary to much of
the commentary on the Supreme Court ruling, judges did not take a side
and did not provide an obligation to create single sex spaces.
"I think it’s quite important to note that you are allowed to exclude
trans women from these facilities. But you are not obliged to do it.
“So, for example, the authorities of a sport such as women’s boxing, women’s football, are allowed to limit it to biological women. They were not in breach of the discrimination rules of the [Equality] Act. But the judgment does not mean that the sporting authorities have got to limit women’s boxing or women’s football to biological women.”
Lord Sumption was also asked about comments from Baroness Falkner that
the ruling meant that trans women could no longer take part in women’s sport, be on single-sex wards and that changing rooms must be based on biological sex.
In response, he said: “No, I don’t think that’s true [...] I don’t think
Baroness Falkner is right to say that you can’t have trans women in women’s sport. Simply that, if you decide not to have them, you aren’t breaking the law... I think they have gone to a great deal of lot of
trouble to avoid [taking] sides in the ideological debate.”
On 29/04/2025 18:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:26:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans
people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like >>>> Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate
see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than >>>> Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which
is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
What's the word for people who treat an entire group of people as if they
are all like the best member of that group?
Decent, humane, sensible.
On 27/04/2025 12:05, The Todal wrote:
On 27/04/2025 11:20, kat wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:23, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2025 11:13, kat wrote:
On 25/04/2025 23:42, The Todal wrote:
On 25/04/2025 13:40, JNugent wrote:
You really don't understand? Haven't you familiarised yourself
Tell me... why would "trans men" be offended by any assertion
that only women have a cervix?
with the facts?
A trans man is a woman who has changed sex and is now entitled to
be regarded by society as a man.
He will have been born with a cervix which may not have been removed. >>>>>>
And you don't see why it should be insulting and hurtful to say to >>>>>> that person that you regard that person as a woman still. Because
of the cervix.
I don't see how I can explain it more clearly. Either you don't
understand the point, or you enjoy taunting trans men.
I think any trans man who is "regarded" as a man still need that
smear test that women get. So the NHS had better not "regard" them >>>>> as a man and not invite them.
Excellent point!
If the hospital were to say "all those with cervixes please arrange
an appointment for a smear test" you'd then have JK Rowling
scornfully tweeting "I'm sure there used to be a word for those
people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
That would shame trans men into missing out on this vital health
check but no matter. By shaming them, you encourage them to follow
the path of righteousness, confess to their error and embrace their
true identity as women.
You do not actually need to call them anything or use that long-
winded wording. Just record their real medical details, including
biological sex, and invite the person by name. Which they do.
But trans men need to remember they are biological women adn, ad long
as they have a cervix, not get upset by being reminded.
The same applies to all those men who insist they are women but have
a prostate. Does that ever get removed during gender reassignment
surgery?
I don't disagree with you. But not everyone gets a personal invitation
to a check-up. There's lots of publicity about the need to check for
symptoms of bowel cancer. Or prostate cancer. Directed at the
community at large. It is possible, perhaps, that trans men would
forget that they still have female body parts that can cause major
health problems.
I don't know about everybody in genera but everybody I know does get
these invitations.
But the point that some don't makes it even more important for trans
people to remember what their actual biological sex is so as to make
sure they get the appropriate screenings.
I see no point in dying of cervical cancer just because of choosing to
live as a man.
On 29/04/2025 18:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:26:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans
people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like >>>> Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate
see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than >>>> Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which
is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
What's the word for people who treat an entire group of people as if they
are all like the best member of that group?
Decent, humane, sensible.
After all, there was a time when children in school were supposed to be perpetually in need of flogging because they wilfully didn't learn their Latin grammar or mathematical tables. So they were all treated as if
they were lazy and disobedient.
And there are some who would treat all refugees as dishonest economic migrants, fleeing from non-existent persecution, trying to take over our council houses.
Why not give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that the
wrongdoers are a small minority? Wouldn't that be Christ's way? Or maybe Christ was a gullible simpleton - can't rule that out.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 17:14:56 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 13:35:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and >>>> Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance. >>>>
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
The choir has the simple solution of changing the description of its
membership and writing a justification of why its membership criteria are >>> proportionate to a legitimate end, justifying the indirect discrimination >>> against other men and women.
But they're not discriminating, and they don't want to discriminate.
The EHRC is telling them that they should start discriminating.
Of course they are discriminating! Ignorance has led people to believe
that 'discrimination' is a bad thing. It is unjustified if it is not
for a good reason.
But you can't have an organisation for one category of people without discriminating against people who don't meet that criterion!
What the EHRC says is you can't have a single sex group and allow some members of the opposite sex in and it still be a single sex group. But
apart from the exceptions for single sex groups, so they can
justifiably discrimate against the opposite sex, there is the
possibility of having a different group that includes various
protected characteristics as long as in your hypothetical group it is reasonable to discriminate those left out who might otherwise
complain of indirect discrimination.
Ditto the WI if it wants to continue admitting trans women.
My criticism of the EHRC guidance is that it fails to explain this.
To that extent I agree with you.
The main problem is that everyone involved hasn't publically apologised
and resigned.
There is little doubt that your position is a minority one.
And it is not obvious to me at least that it is morally right.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:26:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think
of trans people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to
consider those like Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on
the other side of the debate see all trans people through the lens
of Bryson and Thomas rather than Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not
one which is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
What's the word for people who treat an entire group of people as if they
are all like the best member of that group?
On 29/04/2025 13:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and
Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance.
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
I think the ex Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption has gone some way to correcting the widespread misconceptions about the SC judgment but I'm
still waiting for a decent analysis by a good barrister.
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the >>>>> mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who
believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be >>>>> tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any >>>>> parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to
acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High
Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and
I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a separate >>> application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility
automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of the
mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those employed
by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on a birth certificate then they have PR.
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 17:14:56 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 13:35:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:The choir has the simple solution of changing the description of its
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and >>>>> Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance. >>>>>
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least, >>>>> pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR. >>>>
membership and writing a justification of why its membership criteria are >>>> proportionate to a legitimate end, justifying the indirect discrimination >>>> against other men and women.
But they're not discriminating, and they don't want to discriminate.
The EHRC is telling them that they should start discriminating.
Of course they are discriminating! Ignorance has led people to believe
that 'discrimination' is a bad thing. It is unjustified if it is not
for a good reason.
Surely it goes without saying that I was referring to unjustified discrimination?
But you can't have an organisation for one category of people without
discriminating against people who don't meet that criterion!
They want to admit men, which of course includes trans men. The EHRC
says they must discriminate against trans men. This is evil and
probably illegal.
What the EHRC says is you can't have a single sex group and allow some
members of the opposite sex in and it still be a single sex group. But
apart from the exceptions for single sex groups, so they can
justifiably discrimate against the opposite sex, there is the
possibility of having a different group that includes various
protected characteristics as long as in your hypothetical group it is
reasonable to discriminate those left out who might otherwise
complain of indirect discrimination.
The EHRC needs abolishing and replacing with an organisation that is in favour of Equalities and Human Rights.
Ditto the WI if it wants to continue admitting trans women.
My criticism of the EHRC guidance is that it fails to explain this.
To that extent I agree with you.
The main problem is that everyone involved hasn't publically apologised
and resigned.
There is little doubt that your position is a minority one.
On the contrary, there is little doubt it is not the majority one.
Imagine a poll asking whether "gay men's choirs" should be disallowed
from accepting trans men. You seriously think it wouldn't be a landslide
for "no"?
And it is not obvious to me at least that it is morally right.
Well, keep working on that.
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the >>>>>> mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who >>>>>> believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be >>>>>> tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any >>>>>> parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to >>>>>> acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High >>>>> Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and
I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a separate >>>> application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility
automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of the
mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those employed
by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on a birth
certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility
On 2025-04-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 13:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and
Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance. >>>
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
I think the ex Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption has gone some way to
correcting the widespread misconceptions about the SC judgment but I'm
still waiting for a decent analysis by a good barrister.
It's largely irrelevant what other people think about it, if the EHRC
is deliberately misrepresenting the judgement and giving out illegal guidance.
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:23:22 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 18:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:26:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans
people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like >>>>> Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate
see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than >>>>> Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which
is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like >>>> the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
What's the word for people who treat an entire group of people as if they >>> are all like the best member of that group?
Decent, humane, sensible.
Really?
Consider the issues that have been experienced by various religious bodies when dealing with abuse perpetrated by their members. One of the reasons
that the abusers got away with it for so long is because of an institutional reluctance to consider that a priest may be a wrong'un. Sometimes, it is absolutely necessary to face up to the fact that not all members of a group
- even an otherwise generally good group - are good.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 20:41:43 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
Of course they are discriminating! Ignorance has led people to believe
that 'discrimination' is a bad thing. It is unjustified if it is not
for a good reason.
Surely it goes without saying that I was referring to unjustified
discrimination?
But you can't have an organisation for one category of people without
discriminating against people who don't meet that criterion!
They want to admit men, which of course includes trans men. The EHRC
says they must discriminate against trans men. This is evil and
probably illegal.
This is simply not true. The EHRC says that if they want to admit men
they cannot be a single sex organisation.
This follows from the SC decision on the Equality Act. It does not say
that they cannot be an organisation for gay men and trans men. Though
they perhaps they need to say whether this is all trans men or only
those sexually oriented towards men.
The EHRC needs abolishing and replacing with an organisation that is in
favour of Equalities and Human Rights.
Well you're unlikely to get a government body which officially
repudiates the SC decision on the Equality Act; unless the government
revises the EA.
There is little doubt that your position is a minority one.
On the contrary, there is little doubt it is not the majority one.
Imagine a poll asking whether "gay men's choirs" should be disallowed
from accepting trans men. You seriously think it wouldn't be a
landslide for "no"?
Try a poll on whether an organisation for gay men and trans men is a
single sex organisation.
And it is not obvious to me at least that it is morally right.
Well, keep working on that.
That is unsuccessfully patronising.
On 29/04/2025 19:30, Mark Goodge wrote:
Consider the issues that have been experienced by various religious bodies >> when dealing with abuse perpetrated by their members. One of the reasons
that the abusers got away with it for so long is because of an institutional >> reluctance to consider that a priest may be a wrong'un. Sometimes, it is
absolutely necessary to face up to the fact that not all members of a group >> - even an otherwise generally good group - are good.
A valid point - but should we now have a default assumption that
scoutmasters are likely to be paedophiles, clergymen likely to be
preying sexually on vulnerable men and women? Nuns likely to be violent >towards girls and women who are in their care, and to neglect babies and
bury those babies in a collective grave at the convent?
Misbehaviour is always likely to be covered up, if people have a vested >interest in covering it up to preserve their own jobs and prospects of >advancement. We've obviously seen it at Harrods, at Miramax, in the
careers of Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter.
But there doesn't seem to be any organisation of trans women who cover
up each other's crimes or misbehaviour. Each culprit is very much on
their own, is usually identified quickly and prosecuted or punished.
There have been those who would argue that self-identification of
gender should always be accepted, even in cases where a reasonable
onlooker would conclude that a person was using their
self-identification in order to abuse others or gain an unfair
advantage over others.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 20:43:38 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 13:35, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the Anti-Equalities and >>>> Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately issued this evil guidance. >>>>
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC" has
issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country at least,
pretty much all happily accept trans men as members, saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay male
choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association and,
as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the ECtHR.
I think the ex Supreme Court Judge Lord Sumption has gone some way to
correcting the widespread misconceptions about the SC judgment but I'm
still waiting for a decent analysis by a good barrister.
It's largely irrelevant what other people think about it, if the EHRC
is deliberately misrepresenting the judgement and giving out illegal
guidance.
It is giving out inadequate guidance. What it says is true, but it
does not give the whole story.
Perhaps a court will say that is illegal, you could be right.
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 17:14:56 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 13:35:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the
Anti-Equalities and Anti-Human Rights Commission has deliberately
issued this evil guidance.
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC"
has issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country
at least, pretty much all happily accept trans men as members,
saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay
male choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association
and, as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says they
are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the
ECtHR.
The choir has the simple solution of changing the description of
its membership and writing a justification of why its membership
criteria are proportionate to a legitimate end, justifying the
indirect discrimination against other men and women.
But they're not discriminating, and they don't want to
discriminate. The EHRC is telling them that they should start
discriminating.
Of course they are discriminating! Ignorance has led people to
believe that 'discrimination' is a bad thing. It is unjustified if
it is not for a good reason.
Surely it goes without saying that I was referring to unjustified discrimination?
But you can't have an organisation for one category of people
without discriminating against people who don't meet that criterion!
They want to admit men, which of course includes trans men. The EHRC
says they must discriminate against trans men. This is evil and
probably illegal.
[SNIP}
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:28:32 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to beIt's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>>
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In any case, this isn't new. This is how it's been done for decades.
Weren't letters routinely addressed "To the parent or guardian of..."?
Yes. That's how they have always been addressed. It's how they are still addressed.
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the >>>>>> mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who >>>>>> believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be >>>>>> tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any >>>>>> parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to >>>>>> acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High >>>>> Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and
I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a separate >>>> application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility
automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of the
mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those employed
by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on a birth
certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:29:13 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
However, both offences still require the touching to be "sexual", which
isn't specifically defined.
What does Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do then?
It invokes the non-binary person on the Beckenham Borisbus. Specifically, it says that activity is "sexual" if a "reasonable person" considers it to be sexual. And that - considering the position of a reasonable person - is precisely the role of the court. "Sexual" isn't defined in legislation, rather, the court is instructed on how it should be determined.
On 29/04/2025 18:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:26:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument
(including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think
of trans
people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those
like
Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of
the debate
see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than >>>> Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not
one which
is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like
the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for
those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
What's the word for people who treat an entire group of people as if they
are all like the best member of that group?
Decent, humane, sensible.
After all, there was a time when children in school were supposed to be perpetually in need of flogging because they wilfully didn't learn their Latin grammar or mathematical tables. So they were all treated as if
they were lazy and disobedient.
And there are some who would treat all refugees as dishonest economic migrants, fleeing from non-existent persecution, trying to take over our council houses.
On 29/04/2025 22:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.)
If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, does >>>>>>> a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand
that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and
confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite
the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the
High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a
child*, and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update
to the child's birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a
separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility
automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of
the mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those
employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on
a birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility
Not really foolish, but note the term, "usually". I suppose the
exceptions are uncommon.
I also assume there is an issue over GDPR if an authority ask the
mother, who is always the mother, whether the father has PR.
While the GRO will know the circumstances in which the father's name was added to the birth certificate it's certainly not published.
A quick google raised this article in my first hit:
https://www.stoneking.co.uk/sectors/individuals/divorce-separation-and-family-matters/children-matters/parental-declaration
"Following the declaration being made, the Court will notify the
Registrar General and the child’s birth will be re-registered with the father detailed on the child’s birth certificate.
At this stage the father will not have parental responsibility."
On 29 Apr 2025 at 22:52:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the >>>>>>> mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who >>>>>>> believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be >>>>>>> tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any >>>>>>> parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to >>>>>>> acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High >>>>>> Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and >>>>>> I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's >>>>>> birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a separate
application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility
automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of the
mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those employed >>> by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on a birth
certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility
The government is rather fond of web pages which simplify the law to the point
of uselessness for difficult cases. So I wouldn't totally rely on it, especially not with the "usually".
I am interested to know whether you are right or Fredxx is right. Though either way the Family Court could reverse the decision.
On 29/04/2025 18:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:28:32 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>>>It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In any case, this isn't new. This is how it's been done for decades.
Weren't letters routinely addressed "To the parent or guardian of..."?
Yes. That's how they have always been addressed. It's how they are still
addressed.
In that case I don't know what people are arguing about. Oh well.
On 29/04/2025 18:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:29:13 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
However, both offences still require the touching to be "sexual", which >>>> isn't specifically defined.
What does Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do then?
It invokes the non-binary person on the Beckenham Borisbus. Specifically, it >> says that activity is "sexual" if a "reasonable person" considers it to be >> sexual. And that - considering the position of a reasonable person - is
precisely the role of the court. "Sexual" isn't defined in legislation,
rather, the court is instructed on how it should be determined.
So I can't know *in advance* whether what I am about to do is illegal.
Fortunately most people don't know this, or the species would die out.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:m7bof5Fbel3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2025 08:48 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old >>>>> were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were >>>>> born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then >>>>> divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a school to
decide
on the biological impossible belief that some have only one.
Which they don't.
Parthogenesis?
I was referring to the school's decision; not the biological process.
You may try to wriggle around that (though I hope you won't), but you will not
succeed.
Why should anyone ever feel the need to "wriggle out of" any of your
increasingly desperate non-sequiteurs ?
You don't actually know what a non-sequitur is, do you? :-)
https://marriagefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/MF-research-note-Source-of-family-breakdown.pdf
What would be so hard about that? Surely school budgets can stand the expense
of an extra typed character per envelope?
When in *reality*, school budgets would need to stand the expense of sending
out an additional 46% extra typed letters. Assuming the correct second >>>>> addresses were even on file
One letter, per exercise, per child.
Which you are insisting should be addressed to *both parents*; when in
46% of cases, both parents were *not* in fact, living* at that address.
One letter, to both "parents". Instead of one letter to one parent.
For the very last time.
If the Council address the letter to *both* parents they will be
WRONG 46% of the time.
If the Council address the letter to *one* parent they will be
CORRECT 100% of the time.*
* As each child has at least one parent living at that address.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 18:49:34 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 02:31 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/04/2025 12:14, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>>It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal >>>>> mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with
with parental responsibility for a child.
Only a parent has parental responsibility.
No; sometimes it's someone acting in loco parentis. For example, a foster parent, or care worker at a children's home.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:28:32 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to beIt's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>>
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In any case, this isn't new. This is how it's been done for decades.
Weren't letters routinely addressed "To the parent or guardian of..."?
Yes. That's how they have always been addressed. It's how they are still addressed.
On 28/04/2025 18:49, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 02:31 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/04/2025 12:14, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so
wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal >>>>> mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one
person with
with parental responsibility for a child.
Only a parent has parental responsibility.
Simply not true. True that it is automatically granted if a mother
registers a birth, and for the father if his name is added to the birth certificate with the mothers consent.
However PR can be sought through the courts and are normally close
relatives but don't have to be.
On 29/04/2025 00:16, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m79684FtderU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so
wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard
formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with
parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old
were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were
born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a
school to decide on the biological impossible belief that some have
only one.
Morally maybe, but legally no. A child born through sperm donation will
not have immediately a father,
unless the mother consents with some exceptions.
You may try to wriggle around that (though I hope you won't), but you
will not succeed.
No wriggling needed.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 12:47:41 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 18:31, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 14:28:32 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>>
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is to be >>>>>> treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so wrong. >>>>>It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with parental
responsibility for a child.
In any case, this isn't new. This is how it's been done for decades.
Weren't letters routinely addressed "To the parent or guardian of..."?
Yes. That's how they have always been addressed. It's how they are still >>> addressed.
In that case I don't know what people are arguing about. Oh well.
It appears that some people, for some bizarre reason, are under the misapprehension that a) this is a recent change, and that b) it's been made in order to avoid potentially offending single parents. Neither of which is true. But, there you go.
On 29/04/2025 01:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m7bof5Fbel3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2025 08:48 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is >>>>>>>>> to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is >>>>>>>>> so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard
formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person >>>>>>>> with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-
years-old
were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who
were
born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then >>>>>> divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up
to a school to
decide
on the biological impossible belief that some have only one.
Which they don't.
Parthogenesis?
I was referring to the school's decision; not the biological process.
Is there any other way for a child to have only one parent?
On 29/04/2025 07:45 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/04/2025 00:16, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m79684FtderU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is
to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so >>>>>>> wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard
formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with >>>>>> parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-years-old >>>> were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were >>>> born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then
divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a
school to decide on the biological impossible belief that some have
only one.
Morally maybe, but legally no. A child born through sperm donation will
not have immediately a father,
Yes, he will.
If it were otherwise, he (the child) could not exist.
On 29/04/2025 07:42 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2025 18:49, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 02:31 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/04/2025 12:14, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com>
wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is
to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so >>>>>>> wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal >>>>>> mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one
person with
with parental responsibility for a child.
Only a parent has parental responsibility.
Simply not true. True that it is automatically granted if a mother
registers a birth, and for the father if his name is added to the birth
certificate with the mothers consent.
And with his own consent, of course.
Does not militate against what I said.
However PR can be sought through the courts and are normally close
relatives but don't have to be.
Something only a court can award is hardly the same as something
possessed automatically.
On 2025-04-30, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 22:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>> If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, does >>>>>>>> a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand >>>>>>>> that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and
confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite >>>>>>>> the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the
High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a
child*, and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update
to the child's birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a
separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility >>>>> automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of
the mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order. >>>>
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those
employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on
a birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility
Not really foolish, but note the term, "usually". I suppose the
exceptions are uncommon.
I also assume there is an issue over GDPR if an authority ask the
mother, who is always the mother, whether the father has PR.
While the GRO will know the circumstances in which the father's name was
added to the birth certificate it's certainly not published.
A quick google raised this article in my first hit:
https://www.stoneking.co.uk/sectors/individuals/divorce-separation-and-family-matters/children-matters/parental-declaration
"Following the declaration being made, the Court will notify the
Registrar General and the child’s birth will be re-registered with the
father detailed on the child’s birth certificate.
At this stage the father will not have parental responsibility."
Ok. That's a bit cunning - the birth certificate proves parental responsiblity, except when it doesn't. And when it does, there is
no other paperwork you can show to prove that it proves it. So if
you do have parental responsibility from birth you have no way to
evidence it.
On 2025-04-30, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 22:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>> If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, does >>>>>>>> a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand >>>>>>>> that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and
confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite >>>>>>>> the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the
High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a
child*, and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update
to the child's birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a
separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility >>>>> automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of
the mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order. >>>>
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those
employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on
a birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility
Not really foolish, but note the term, "usually". I suppose the
exceptions are uncommon.
I also assume there is an issue over GDPR if an authority ask the
mother, who is always the mother, whether the father has PR.
While the GRO will know the circumstances in which the father's name was
added to the birth certificate it's certainly not published.
A quick google raised this article in my first hit:
https://www.stoneking.co.uk/sectors/individuals/divorce-separation-and-family-matters/children-matters/parental-declaration
"Following the declaration being made, the Court will notify the
Registrar General and the child’s birth will be re-registered with the
father detailed on the child’s birth certificate.
At this stage the father will not have parental responsibility."
Ok. That's a bit cunning - the birth certificate proves parental responsiblity, except when it doesn't. And when it does, there is
no other paperwork you can show to prove that it proves it. So if
you do have parental responsibility from birth you have no way to
evidence it.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 22:52:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> >>>>> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) If the >>>>>>> mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who >>>>>>> believes he may be the father have a right to demand that paternity be >>>>>>> tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek any >>>>>>> parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to >>>>>>> acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High >>>>>> Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and >>>>>> I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's >>>>>> birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a separate
application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility
automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of the
mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those employed >>> by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on a birth
certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility
The government is rather fond of web pages which simplify the law to the point
of uselessness for difficult cases. So I wouldn't totally rely on it, especially not with the "usually".
I am interested to know whether you are right or Fredxx is right. Though either way the Family Court could reverse the decision.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 13:27:35 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 18:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 15:29:13 +0100, Norman Wells <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote: >>
However, both offences still require the touching to be "sexual", which >>>>> isn't specifically defined.
What does Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 do then?
It invokes the non-binary person on the Beckenham Borisbus. Specifically, it
says that activity is "sexual" if a "reasonable person" considers it to be >>> sexual. And that - considering the position of a reasonable person - is
precisely the role of the court. "Sexual" isn't defined in legislation,
rather, the court is instructed on how it should be determined.
So I can't know *in advance* whether what I am about to do is illegal.
You can, because you know whether your motivations are sexual.
Fortunately most people don't know this, or the species would die out.
There's nothing wrong with consensual sexual activity between adults. The question of whether something is, or is not, sexual in the sense of the Sexual Offences Act only comes into play once it has already been determined that either it was not consensual or one of the participants was a minor.
And getting into this territory is absolutely not required for the propagation of the species.
On 30/04/2025 16:13, JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2025 07:42 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2025 18:49, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 02:31 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 28/04/2025 12:14, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is >>>>>>>> to be treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that >>>>>>>> is so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard formal >>>>>>> mode of addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one
person with with parental responsibility for a child.
Only a parent has parental responsibility.
Simply not true. True that it is automatically granted if a mother
registers a birth, and for the father if his name is added to the birth
certificate with the mothers consent.
And with his own consent, of course.
Does not militate against what I said.
However PR can be sought through the courts and are normally close
relatives but don't have to be.
Something only a court can award is hardly the same as something
possessed automatically.
Excellent, so we are in agreement that "Only a parent has parental responsibility" is patently false.
Feel free to have the last word.
On 30/04/2025 16:17, JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2025 07:45 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/04/2025 00:16, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m79684FtderU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or is >>>>>>>> to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is so >>>>>>>> wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard
formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person with >>>>>>> parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged
14-years-old
were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who were >>>>> born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then >>>>> divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up to a >>>> school to decide on the biological impossible belief that some have
only one.
Morally maybe, but legally no. A child born through sperm donation will
not have immediately a father,
Yes, he will.
If it were otherwise, he (the child) could not exist.
That depends on whether your definition of a tomato is a fruit or
vegetable.
One has a academic origin, and the other from common parlance.
On 30/04/2025 16:06, JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2025 01:54 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:m7bof5Fbel3U1@mid.individual.net...
On 29/04/2025 08:48 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 08:31 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2025 09:59 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 13:24:30 +0100, JNugent
<JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
It is the impertinent assumption that every child lives - or >>>>>>>>>> is to be
treated as living - in a one-parent [sic] family home that is >>>>>>>>>> so wrong.
It's not making that assumption. It's merely using a standard >>>>>>>>> formal mode of
addressing a letter intended to be read by at least one person >>>>>>>>> with parental
responsibility for a child.
In that case, why not put "parents" in the plural?
quote:
The result of this is that 46% of first-born children aged 14-
years-old
were not living with both natural parents. This comprised 19% who >>>>>>> were
born to single parents, 14% whose parents married at some stage then >>>>>>> divorced and 13% whose parents never married but split up.
;unquote:
You have missed the point.
All children - without exception - have two parents. It is not up
to a school to
decide
on the biological impossible belief that some have only one.
Which they don't.
Parthogenesis?
I was referring to the school's decision; not the biological process.
Is there any other way for a child to have only one parent?
Yes, where there is no legal father, dead or otherwise, and hence has
one parent.
I really don't see the difficulty here.
On 30/04/2025 03:02 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
It appears that some people, for some bizarre reason, are under the
misapprehension that a) this is a recent change, and that b) it's been made >> in order to avoid potentially offending single parents. Neither of which is >> true. But, there you go.
That was exactly the reason given by the local school (some years ago now).
On 30/04/2025 15:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 13:27:35 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 29/04/2025 18:59, Mark Goodge wrote:
It invokes the non-binary person on the Beckenham Borisbus. Specifically, it
says that activity is "sexual" if a "reasonable person" considers it to be >>>> sexual. And that - considering the position of a reasonable person - is >>>> precisely the role of the court. "Sexual" isn't defined in legislation, >>>> rather, the court is instructed on how it should be determined.
So I can't know *in advance* whether what I am about to do is illegal.
You can, because you know whether your motivations are sexual.
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on
motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't affect
the other person.
On 30/04/2025 01:37 PM, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-30, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 22:52, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>>> If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, does >>>>>>>>> a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand >>>>>>>>> that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and >>>>>>>>> confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite >>>>>>>>> the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the >>>>>>>> High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a
child*, and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update >>>>>>>> to the child's birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a >>>>>>> separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility >>>>>> automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of
the mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order. >>>>>
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those
employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on >>>>> a birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either: >>>>
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-
parental-responsibility
Not really foolish, but note the term, "usually". I suppose the
exceptions are uncommon.
I also assume there is an issue over GDPR if an authority ask the
mother, who is always the mother, whether the father has PR.
While the GRO will know the circumstances in which the father's name was >>> added to the birth certificate it's certainly not published.
A quick google raised this article in my first hit:
https://www.stoneking.co.uk/sectors/individuals/divorce-separation-
and-family-matters/children-matters/parental-declaration
"Following the declaration being made, the Court will notify the
Registrar General and the child’s birth will be re-registered with the >>> father detailed on the child’s birth certificate.
At this stage the father will not have parental responsibility."
Ok. That's a bit cunning - the birth certificate proves parental
responsiblity, except when it doesn't. And when it does, there is
no other paperwork you can show to prove that it proves it. So if
you do have parental responsibility from birth you have no way to
evidence it.
Other than with the certificate for the marriage of the father and
mother and the child's birth certificate, you mean?
Or, in the case of unmarried cases of the last two decades or so*, the
mere birth certificate containg the father's name?
[* Approximation, because the dates are different in the three home jurisdiction.]
On 29/04/2025 11:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 22:52:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 12:02:39 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu>
wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>> If the
mother does not know or declines to name the father, does a man who >>>>>>>> believes he may be the father have a right to demand that
paternity be
tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and confirmed can he seek >>>>>>>> any
parental rights from a court despite the mother not wishing him to >>>>>>>> acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the High >>>>>>> Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, and >>>>>>> I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's >>>>>>> birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a
separate
application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility >>>>> automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of the >>>> mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order. >>>>
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those
employed
by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on a birth
certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-
responsibility
The government is rather fond of web pages which simplify the law to
the point
of uselessness for difficult cases. So I wouldn't totally rely on it,
especially not with the "usually".
I am interested to know whether you are right or Fredxx is right. Though
either way the Family Court could reverse the decision.
See:
<https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental- responsibility>
QUOTE:
In the UK, an unmarried father does not automatically have parental responsibility for his child. However, he can obtain it in several ways:
- Being named on the birth certificate – If the father is listed on the child’s birth certificate and the birth was registered after:
- 1 December 2003 in England and Wales
- 4 May 2006 in Scotland
- 15 April 2002 in Northern Ireland
[NB: So in order for the simple "on birth certificate" qualification not
to automatically apply, the child has to be at least:
21 in E&W,
19 [in a few days' time] in Scotland or
23 in NI.]
- Parental Responsibility Agreement – The father and mother can
voluntarily sign a legal agreement granting him parental responsibility.
- Parental Responsibility Order – If the mother does not agree, the
father can apply to the court for an order granting him parental responsibility.
- Marriage to the child’s mother – If the father later marries the mother, he automatically gains parental responsibility.
Parental responsibility gives the father legal rights and duties
regarding the child’s upbringing, including decisions about education, medical treatment, and welfare.
ENDQUOTE
But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so years (pace
the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the father's simply
being on the birth certificate is all that is required.
On 29 Apr 2025 at 20:41:43 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 17:14:56 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 13:35:30 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-27, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g355v07l2o
Greens call for single-sex guidance to be withdrawn Interim
guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and
impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
This isn't really the case, the problem is that the
Anti-Equalities and Anti-Human Rights Commission has
deliberately issued this evil guidance.
As an example of their evil and stupidity, the so-called "EHRC"
has issued guidance to gay mens' choirs, which, in this country
at least, pretty much all happily accept trans men as members,
saying:
"If the association wishes to continue to be called a gay
male choir, this would mean it is a gay men-only association
and, as per the interim update, should not admit trans men"
Never mind that the choir members *want* to allow trans men, the
Inequalities and Destruction of Human Rights Commission says
they are *not allowed* to do so.
There is no way this shit is going to survive challenge at the
ECtHR.
The choir has the simple solution of changing the description of
its membership and writing a justification of why its membership
criteria are proportionate to a legitimate end, justifying the
indirect discrimination against other men and women.
But they're not discriminating, and they don't want to
discriminate. The EHRC is telling them that they should start
discriminating.
Of course they are discriminating! Ignorance has led people to
believe that 'discrimination' is a bad thing. It is unjustified if
it is not for a good reason.
Surely it goes without saying that I was referring to unjustified
discrimination?
But you can't have an organisation for one category of people
without discriminating against people who don't meet that
criterion!
They want to admit men, which of course includes trans men. The EHRC
says they must discriminate against trans men. This is evil and
probably illegal.
This is simply not true. The EHRC says that if they want to admit men
they cannot be a single sex organisation. This follows from the SC
decision on the Equality Act. It does not say that they cannot be an organisation for gay men and trans men. Though they perhaps they need
to say whether this is all trans men or only those sexually oriented
towards men.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on
motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't affect
the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing the act. There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that respect. Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:45:58 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 03:02 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
It appears that some people, for some bizarre reason, are under the
misapprehension that a) this is a recent change, and that b) it's been made >>> in order to avoid potentially offending single parents. Neither of which is >>> true. But, there you go.
That was exactly the reason given by the local school (some years ago now).
More precisely, it was the answer given by a person at a school.
Who does
not necessarily have all the facts at their disposal, and may be answering from their own opinion. Particularly if they, too, haven't been around long enough to know that this is how it's always been done.
On 29/04/2025 19:30, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 29 Apr 2025 19:23:22 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
On 29/04/2025 18:53, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 10:26:36 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-28, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Part of the problem is that many people on one side of the argument >>>>>> (including, I think, those responsible for drafting the GRA) think of trans
people like Jan Morris and Wendy Carlos, and fail to consider those like >>>>>> Isla Bryson and Lia Thomas. Meanwhile, those on the other side of the debate
see all trans people through the lens of Bryson and Thomas rather than >>>>>> Morris and Carlos.
I don't think there's an easy solution to that, and certainly not one which
is amenable to a simple legislative fix.
Hmm, people who treat an entire group of people as if they are all like >>>>> the worst member of that group. I'm sure there used to be a word for >>>>> those people. Someone help me out. Bugots? Bigunts? Boogots?
What's the word for people who treat an entire group of people as if they >>>> are all like the best member of that group?
Decent, humane, sensible.
Really?
Consider the issues that have been experienced by various religious bodies >> when dealing with abuse perpetrated by their members. One of the reasons
that the abusers got away with it for so long is because of an institutional >> reluctance to consider that a priest may be a wrong'un. Sometimes, it is
absolutely necessary to face up to the fact that not all members of a group >> - even an otherwise generally good group - are good.
A valid point - but should we now have a default assumption that
scoutmasters are likely to be paedophiles, clergymen likely to be
preying sexually on vulnerable men and women? Nuns likely to be violent towards girls and women who are in their care, and to neglect babies and
bury those babies in a collective grave at the convent?
Misbehaviour is always likely to be covered up, if people have a vested interest in covering it up to preserve their own jobs and prospects of advancement. We've obviously seen it at Harrods, at Miramax, in the
careers of Jimmy Savile and Gary Glitter.
But there doesn't seem to be any organisation of trans women who cover
up each other's crimes or misbehaviour. Each culprit is very much on
their own, is usually identified quickly and prosecuted or punished.
On 30/04/2025 16:26, JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2025 11:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 22:52:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>>> If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, does >>>>>>>>> a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand >>>>>>>>> that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and >>>>>>>>> confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite >>>>>>>>> the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the >>>>>>>> High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a child*, >>>>>>>> and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the child's >>>>>>>> birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a >>>>>>> separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and
a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility >>>>>> automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of the >>>>> mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court order. >>>>> It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those
employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is on a >>>>> birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental- responsibility
The government is rather fond of web pages which simplify the law to
the point of uselessness for difficult cases. So I wouldn't totally rely on it,
especially not with the "usually".
I am interested to know whether you are right or Fredxx is right. Though >>> either way the Family Court could reverse the decision.
See:
<https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-
responsibility>
QUOTE:
In the UK, an unmarried father does not automatically have parental
responsibility for his child. However, he can obtain it in several ways:
- Being named on the birth certificate – If the father is listed on
the child’s birth certificate and the birth was registered after:
- 1 December 2003 in England and Wales
- 4 May 2006 in Scotland
- 15 April 2002 in Northern Ireland
[NB: So in order for the simple "on birth certificate" qualification
not to automatically apply, the child has to [CURRENTLY - Ed.] be at least:
21 in E&W,
19 [in a few days' time] in Scotland or
23 in NI.]
- Parental Responsibility Agreement – The father and mother can
voluntarily sign a legal agreement granting him parental responsibility.
Yes, in Scotland. And similarly in NI. But not in England and Wales.
Thanks, I've learnt something. My family's experience was in England.
- Parental Responsibility Order – If the mother does not agree, the
father can apply to the court for an order granting him parental
responsibility.
- Marriage to the child’s mother – If the father later marries the
mother, he automatically gains parental responsibility.
Parental responsibility gives the father legal rights and duties
regarding the child’s upbringing, including decisions about education,
medical treatment, and welfare.
ENDQUOTE
But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so years (pace
the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the father's simply
being on the birth certificate is all that is required.
Noooooo
Even from your own link:
Births registered in England and Wales
If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if
they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility[1].
They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.
Unmarried parents
An unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1
of 3 ways:
jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1 December 2003)
getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
getting a parental responsibility order from a court
You have, in another subthread, been given the basis why your belief is
wrong in terms of statute where the father is named on the Birth
Certificate by way of Declaration of Parentage Order (more specifically
NOT where birth of the child is registered, or re-registered, with the mother).
If you can find the statute that provides the basis of your claim,
namely, "But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so
years (pace the slightly different date situation in Scotland), the
father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is required",
I will be happy to eat humble pie.
[1] Even here it's not straightforward if the father is not biologically
the father and depends on circumstances.
On 01/05/2025 10:50 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:26, JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2025 11:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 22:52:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>>>> If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, does >>>>>>>>>> a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand >>>>>>>>>> that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and >>>>>>>>>> confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite >>>>>>>>>> the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the >>>>>>>>> High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a >>>>>>>>> child*,
and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the >>>>>>>>> child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a >>>>>>>> separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and >>>>>>> a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental responsibility >>>>>>> automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent of >>>>>> the
mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court
order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those
employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is
on a
birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either: >>>>> * married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-
parental- responsibility
The government is rather fond of web pages which simplify the law to
the point of uselessness for difficult cases. So I wouldn't totally
rely on it,
especially not with the "usually".
I am interested to know whether you are right or Fredxx is right.
Though
either way the Family Court could reverse the decision.
See:
<https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-
responsibility>
QUOTE:
In the UK, an unmarried father does not automatically have parental
responsibility for his child. However, he can obtain it in several ways:
- Being named on the birth certificate – If the father is listed on
the child’s birth certificate and the birth was registered after:
- 1 December 2003 in England and Wales
- 4 May 2006 in Scotland
- 15 April 2002 in Northern Ireland
[NB: So in order for the simple "on birth certificate" qualification
not to automatically apply, the child has to [CURRENTLY - Ed.] be at
least:
21 in E&W,
19 [in a few days' time] in Scotland or
23 in NI.]
- Parental Responsibility Agreement – The father and mother can
voluntarily sign a legal agreement granting him parental responsibility.
Yes, in Scotland. And similarly in NI. But not in England and Wales.
Thanks, I've learnt something. My family's experience was in England.
The gov.uk website says that is IS the case in England, and has been so
(in effect) for child registration on or after 1 December 2003 (with analogous dates of 4 May 2006 in Scotland and 15 April 2002 for NI).
Check the website.
- Parental Responsibility Order – If the mother does not agree, the
father can apply to the court for an order granting him parental
responsibility.
- Marriage to the child’s mother – If the father later marries the
mother, he automatically gains parental responsibility.
Parental responsibility gives the father legal rights and duties
regarding the child’s upbringing, including decisions about education, >>> medical treatment, and welfare.
ENDQUOTE
But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so years (pace
the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the father's simply
being on the birth certificate is all that is required.
Noooooo
Even from your own link:
Births registered in England and Wales
If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if
they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility[1].
Not applicable here (I never said it was)
They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.
Unmarried parents
An unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1
of 3 ways:
jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1 >> December 2003)
That's the only way that an unmarried father can be named on a birth certificate - with his agreement, the mother's agreement (thereby naming
him as the father) and his presence at the register office for the registration (as we know, it's completely different for fathers married
to the child's mother).
I did a quick AI search at CoPilot:
QUOTE:
Q: In England and Wales, can an unmarried mother name any old man as the father of one or more of her childreb, or does he need to agree with it?
A: In England and Wales, an unmarried mother cannot simply name any man
as the father of her child without his agreement. When registering a
birth, if the parents are unmarried, the father’s name can only be
included on the birth certificate if both parents are present at the registration and agree to it.
If the mother registers the birth alone, she cannot name the father
unless she provides a legal document, such as a Declaration of Parentage
or a court order confirming paternity. If a man disputes being named as
the father, he can challenge it legally, often through a paternity test
or court proceedings. [1]
[1] See: https://familylawspecialists.co.uk/unmarried-fathers-rights-in- the-uk/
ENDQUOTE
getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
getting a parental responsibility order from a court
You have, in another subthread, been given the basis why your belief is
wrong in terms of statute where the father is named on the Birth
Certificate by way of Declaration of Parentage Order (more specifically
NOT where birth of the child is registered, or re-registered, with the
mother).
If you can find the statute that provides the basis of your claim,
namely, "But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so
years (pace the slightly different date situation in Scotland), the
father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is required",
I will be happy to eat humble pie.
[1] Even here it's not straightforward if the father is not biologically
the father and depends on circumstances.
I did not claim that there were no other circumstances in which a man
can claim PR. I merely pointed out that simply being on the birth
certificate is a clear route to it, for any child registration completed
on or after 1 December 2003 in E&W.
His being on the certificate cannot come about by bureaucratic accident.
The MOTHER has to agree to it. HE has to agree to it. They both have to
be present when the registration (or, as the case may sometimes be, a re-registration) is completed.
I'm not asking you to eat anything. It's a slightly complex area (one
which I very occasionally used to have to deal with when I was working
for a living). Even so, I wouldn't have been able to quote all the
references of my own knowledge. It certainly wasn't central to my work.
On 02/05/2025 15:56, JNugent wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:26, JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2025 11:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 22:52:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>>>>> If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, does >>>>>>>>>>> a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand >>>>>>>>>>> that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and >>>>>>>>>>> confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite >>>>>>>>>>> the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the >>>>>>>>>> High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a >>>>>>>>>> child*,
and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the >>>>>>>>>> child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a >>>>>>>>> separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and >>>>>>>> a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental
responsibility
automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent
of the
mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court
order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those
employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is >>>>>>> on a
birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the
subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either:
* married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-
parental- responsibility
The government is rather fond of web pages which simplify the law to >>>>> the point of uselessness for difficult cases. So I wouldn't totally
rely on it,
especially not with the "usually".
I am interested to know whether you are right or Fredxx is right.
Though
either way the Family Court could reverse the decision.
See:
<https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental- >>>> responsibility>
QUOTE:
In the UK, an unmarried father does not automatically have parental
responsibility for his child. However, he can obtain it in several
ways:
- Being named on the birth certificate – If the father is listed on
the child’s birth certificate and the birth was registered after:
- 1 December 2003 in England and Wales
- 4 May 2006 in Scotland
- 15 April 2002 in Northern Ireland
[NB: So in order for the simple "on birth certificate" qualification
not to automatically apply, the child has to [CURRENTLY - Ed.] be at
least:
21 in E&W,
19 [in a few days' time] in Scotland or
23 in NI.]
- Parental Responsibility Agreement – The father and mother can
voluntarily sign a legal agreement granting him parental
responsibility.
Yes, in Scotland. And similarly in NI. But not in England and Wales.
Thanks, I've learnt something. My family's experience was in England.
The gov.uk website says that is IS the case in England, and has been
so (in effect) for child registration on or after 1 December 2003
(with analogous dates of 4 May 2006 in Scotland and 15 April 2002 for
NI).
Check the website.
- Parental Responsibility Order – If the mother does not agree, the
father can apply to the court for an order granting him parental
responsibility.
- Marriage to the child’s mother – If the father later marries the >>>> mother, he automatically gains parental responsibility.
Parental responsibility gives the father legal rights and duties
regarding the child’s upbringing, including decisions about education, >>>> medical treatment, and welfare.
ENDQUOTE
But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so years (pace >>>> the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the father's simply >>>> being on the birth certificate is all that is required.
Noooooo
Even from your own link:
Births registered in England and Wales
If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if
they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility[1].
Not applicable here (I never said it was)
They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.
Unmarried parents
An unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1
of 3 ways:
jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1
December 2003)
That's the only way that an unmarried father can be named on a birth
certificate - with his agreement, the mother's agreement (thereby
naming him as the father) and his presence at the register office for
the registration (as we know, it's completely different for fathers
married to the child's mother).
I did a quick AI search at CoPilot:
QUOTE:
Q: In England and Wales, can an unmarried mother name any old man as
the father of one or more of her childreb, or does he need to agree
with it?
A: In England and Wales, an unmarried mother cannot simply name any
man as the father of her child without his agreement. When registering
a birth, if the parents are unmarried, the father’s name can only be
included on the birth certificate if both parents are present at the
registration and agree to it.
If the mother registers the birth alone, she cannot name the father
unless she provides a legal document, such as a Declaration of
Parentage or a court order confirming paternity. If a man disputes
being named as the father, he can challenge it legally, often through
a paternity test or court proceedings. [1]
[1] See:
https://familylawspecialists.co.uk/unmarried-fathers-rights-in- the-uk/
ENDQUOTE
getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
getting a parental responsibility order from a court
You have, in another subthread, been given the basis why your belief is
wrong in terms of statute where the father is named on the Birth
Certificate by way of Declaration of Parentage Order (more specifically
NOT where birth of the child is registered, or re-registered, with the
mother).
If you can find the statute that provides the basis of your claim,
namely, "But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so
years (pace the slightly different date situation in Scotland), the
father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is required", >>> I will be happy to eat humble pie.
[1] Even here it's not straightforward if the father is not biologically >>> the father and depends on circumstances.
I did not claim that there were no other circumstances in which a man
can claim PR. I merely pointed out that simply being on the birth
certificate is a clear route to it, for any child registration
completed on or after 1 December 2003 in E&W.
His being on the certificate cannot come about by bureaucratic
accident. The MOTHER has to agree to it. HE has to agree to it. They
both have to be present when the registration (or, as the case may
sometimes be, a re-registration) is completed.
Nooo. He can be put on the birth certificate by a court order giving him parental responsibility. Neither he or the court needs the mother's
consent.
I'm not asking you to eat anything. It's a slightly complex area (one
which I very occasionally used to have to deal with when I was working
for a living). Even so, I wouldn't have been able to quote all the
references of my own knowledge. It certainly wasn't central to my work.
It isn't at all complex. I stated that in England and Wales, where the
father goes through the courts for an order of Declaration of Parentage
to get his name on the birth certificate, that this does not
automatically give him Parental Responsibility.
So, do you now agree that stating for a father to have Parental Responsibility, "in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so
years (pace the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the
father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is required."
was always false?
The answer is yes or no, not paragraphs of irrelevance.
BTW I can assure you it is not automatic and not all that is required.
On 01/05/2025 10:47 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:45:58 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2025 03:02 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:More precisely, it was the answer given by a person at a school.
It appears that some people, for some bizarre reason, are under the
misapprehension that a) this is a recent change, and that b) it's been made
in order to avoid potentially offending single parents. Neither of which is
true. But, there you go.
That was exactly the reason given by the local school (some years ago now). >>
Even more precisely, and definitely, it was the official response by the >school, delivered by someone with the authority (real or degelated) to
speak / write on behalf of the school as a whole (staff and governors).
Who does
not necessarily have all the facts at their disposal, and may be answering >> from their own opinion. Particularly if they, too, haven't been around long >> enough to know that this is how it's always been done.
What difference does that make (if any)?
On 01/05/2025 10:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on
motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't affect
the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing the act. >> There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that respect. >> Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court.
That's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say that
an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result.
On 3 May 2025 at 14:49:06 BST, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:20:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
That's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say that >>> an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result.
Deliberately performing a sexual act without consent *is* criminal intent. >>
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the parson >> is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and non-abusive,
then the motivation doesn't come into it.
Equally, there's nothing particularly unusual about the nature of the
motivation being a factor in the offence. A lot of fraud offences, for
example, require the action to have been carried out with financial motive. >> Mark
It seems likely that some sexual assaults are committed with the motive of >harming, intimidating or humiliating the victim, rather than particularly for >the sexual pleasure of the assailant.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:20:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on
motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't affect >>>> the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing the act. >>> There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that respect. >>> Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court.
That's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say that
an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result.
Deliberately performing a sexual act without consent *is* criminal intent.
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the parson
is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and non-abusive,
then the motivation doesn't come into it.
Equally, there's nothing particularly unusual about the nature of the motivation being a factor in the offence. A lot of fraud offences, for example, require the action to have been carried out with financial motive. Mark
On Fri, 02 May 2025 15:30:28 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:47 AM, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 16:45:58 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote: >>>> On 30/04/2025 03:02 PM, Mark Goodge wrote:
It appears that some people, for some bizarre reason, are under the
misapprehension that a) this is a recent change, and that b) it's been made
in order to avoid potentially offending single parents. Neither of which is
true. But, there you go.
That was exactly the reason given by the local school (some years ago now).
More precisely, it was the answer given by a person at a school.
Even more precisely, and definitely, it was the official response by the
school, delivered by someone with the authority (real or degelated) to
speak / write on behalf of the school as a whole (staff and governors).
That still doesn't make them right.
Who does
not necessarily have all the facts at their disposal, and may be answering >>> from their own opinion. Particularly if they, too, haven't been around long >>> enough to know that this is how it's always been done.
What difference does that make (if any)?
It would affect the probability of them having relevant longstanding experience.
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:20:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on
motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't affect >>>> the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing the act. >>> There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that respect. >>> Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court.
That's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say that
an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result.
Deliberately performing a sexual act without consent *is* criminal intent.
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the parson
is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and non-abusive,
then the motivation doesn't come into it.
On 03/05/2025 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the parson >> is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and non-abusive,
then the motivation doesn't come into it.
It's criminal because it's illegal. The way the law is written, it *is*
the fact that someone is experiencing sexual gratification that makes
some offences illegal, for example voyeurism. This is pure puritanism.
On Sat, 3 May 2025 18:21:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 03/05/2025 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the parson >>> is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and non-abusive, >>> then the motivation doesn't come into it.
It's criminal because it's illegal. The way the law is written, it *is*
the fact that someone is experiencing sexual gratification that makes
some offences illegal, for example voyeurism. This is pure puritanism.
And in what way is that different to the circumstances in which it is the fact that someone is experiencing financial gratification that makes some offences illegal? Is that pure socialism?
Mark
On 03/05/2025 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:20:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on
motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't affect >>>>> the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing the act.
There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that respect.
Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court.
That's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say that >>> an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result.
Deliberately performing a sexual act without consent *is* criminal intent. >>
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the parson >> is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and non-abusive,
then the motivation doesn't come into it.
It's criminal because it's illegal. The way the law is written, it *is*
the fact that someone is experiencing sexual gratification that makes
some offences illegal, for example voyeurism. This is pure puritanism.
On 02/05/2025 09:43 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 02/05/2025 15:56, JNugent wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:26, JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2025 11:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 22:52:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>>>>>> If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, >>>>>>>>>>>> does
a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand >>>>>>>>>>>> that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and >>>>>>>>>>>> confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite >>>>>>>>>>>> the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the >>>>>>>>>>> High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a >>>>>>>>>>> child*,
and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the >>>>>>>>>>> child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, unless a >>>>>>>>>> separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and >>>>>>>>> a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental
responsibility
automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent >>>>>>>> of the
mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court >>>>>>>> order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those >>>>>>>> employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is >>>>>>>> on a
birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the >>>>>>> subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either: >>>>>>> * married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-
parental- responsibility
The government is rather fond of web pages which simplify the law to >>>>>> the point of uselessness for difficult cases. So I wouldn't totally >>>>>> rely on it,
especially not with the "usually".
I am interested to know whether you are right or Fredxx is right.
Though
either way the Family Court could reverse the decision.
See:
<https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental- >>>>> responsibility>
QUOTE:
In the UK, an unmarried father does not automatically have parental
responsibility for his child. However, he can obtain it in several
ways:
- Being named on the birth certificate – If the father is listed on >>>>> the child’s birth certificate and the birth was registered after:
- 1 December 2003 in England and Wales
- 4 May 2006 in Scotland
- 15 April 2002 in Northern Ireland
[NB: So in order for the simple "on birth certificate" qualification >>>>> not to automatically apply, the child has to [CURRENTLY - Ed.] be at >>>>> least:
21 in E&W,
19 [in a few days' time] in Scotland or
23 in NI.]
- Parental Responsibility Agreement – The father and mother can
voluntarily sign a legal agreement granting him parental
responsibility.
Yes, in Scotland. And similarly in NI. But not in England and Wales.
Thanks, I've learnt something. My family's experience was in England.
The gov.uk website says that is IS the case in England, and has been
so (in effect) for child registration on or after 1 December 2003
(with analogous dates of 4 May 2006 in Scotland and 15 April 2002 for
NI).
Check the website.
Not applicable here (I never said it was)- Parental Responsibility Order – If the mother does not agree, the >>>>> father can apply to the court for an order granting him parental
responsibility.
- Marriage to the child’s mother – If the father later marries the >>>>> mother, he automatically gains parental responsibility.
Parental responsibility gives the father legal rights and duties
regarding the child’s upbringing, including decisions about education, >>>>> medical treatment, and welfare.
ENDQUOTE
But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so years (pace >>>>> the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the father's simply >>>>> being on the birth certificate is all that is required.
Noooooo
Even from your own link:
Births registered in England and Wales
If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if
they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility[1]. >>>
They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.
Unmarried parents
An unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1 >>>> of 3 ways:
jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother (from 1
December 2003)
That's the only way that an unmarried father can be named on a birth
certificate - with his agreement, the mother's agreement (thereby
naming him as the father) and his presence at the register office for
the registration (as we know, it's completely different for fathers
married to the child's mother).
I did a quick AI search at CoPilot:
QUOTE:
Q: In England and Wales, can an unmarried mother name any old man as
the father of one or more of her childreb, or does he need to agree
with it?
A: In England and Wales, an unmarried mother cannot simply name any
man as the father of her child without his agreement. When registering
a birth, if the parents are unmarried, the father’s name can only be
included on the birth certificate if both parents are present at the
registration and agree to it.
If the mother registers the birth alone, she cannot name the father
unless she provides a legal document, such as a Declaration of
Parentage or a court order confirming paternity. If a man disputes
being named as the father, he can challenge it legally, often through
a paternity test or court proceedings. [1]
[1] See:
https://familylawspecialists.co.uk/unmarried-fathers-rights-in- the-uk/
ENDQUOTE
getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
getting a parental responsibility order from a court
You have, in another subthread, been given the basis why your belief is >>>> wrong in terms of statute where the father is named on the Birth
Certificate by way of Declaration of Parentage Order (more specifically >>>> NOT where birth of the child is registered, or re-registered, with the >>>> mother).
If you can find the statute that provides the basis of your claim,
namely, "But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so
years (pace the slightly different date situation in Scotland), the
father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is
required",
I will be happy to eat humble pie.
[1] Even here it's not straightforward if the father is not
biologically
the father and depends on circumstances.
I did not claim that there were no other circumstances in which a man
can claim PR. I merely pointed out that simply being on the birth
certificate is a clear route to it, for any child registration
completed on or after 1 December 2003 in E&W.
His being on the certificate cannot come about by bureaucratic
accident. The MOTHER has to agree to it. HE has to agree to it. They
both have to be present when the registration (or, as the case may
sometimes be, a re-registration) is completed.
Nooo. He can be put on the birth certificate by a court order giving him
parental responsibility. Neither he or the court needs the mother's
consent.
You are ignoring the fact that he still needs the mother's consent to
get onto the birth certificate even in a non-contested case.
I'm not asking you to eat anything. It's a slightly complex area (one
which I very occasionally used to have to deal with when I was working
for a living). Even so, I wouldn't have been able to quote all the
references of my own knowledge. It certainly wasn't central to my work.
It isn't at all complex. I stated that in England and Wales, where the
father goes through the courts for an order of Declaration of Parentage
to get his name on the birth certificate, that this does not
automatically give him Parental Responsibility.
So, do you now agree that stating for a father to have Parental
Responsibility, "in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so
years (pace the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the
father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is required."
was always false?
Of course not. It would have been false before the specified date.
The answer is yes or no, not paragraphs of irrelevance.
BTW I can assure you it is not automatic and not all that is required.
On 03/05/2025 01:07, JNugent wrote:
On 02/05/2025 09:43 PM, Fredxx wrote:
On 02/05/2025 15:56, JNugent wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50 AM, Fredxx wrote:
On 30/04/2025 16:26, JNugent wrote:
On 29/04/2025 11:10 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2025 at 22:52:19 BST, "Jon Ribbens"
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
On 29/04/2025 12:45, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
"Jon Ribbens" <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2025-04-29, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
You raise an interesting legal point. (This is a legal group.) >>>>>>>>>>>>> If the mother does not know or declines to name the father, >>>>>>>>>>>>> does
a man who believes he may be the father have a right to demand >>>>>>>>>>>>> that paternity be tested (by DNA) and if it is so tested and >>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmed can he seek any parental rights from a court despite >>>>>>>>>>>>> the mother not wishing him to acquire such rights?
Yes, under s55A of the Family Law Act 1986 you can apply to the >>>>>>>>>>>> High Court for a declaration that someone is the parent of a >>>>>>>>>>>> child*,
and I think this involves a DNA test and then an update to the >>>>>>>>>>>> child's
birth certificate if appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/55/section/55A
I suppose parental rights would follow this declaration, >>>>>>>>>>> unless a
separate application to the Family Court sought otherwise?
I would assume so, because the birth certificate is updated, and >>>>>>>>>> a parent listed on the birth certificate has parental
responsibility automatically.
Not true.
Yes if the father is placed on a birth certificate with consent >>>>>>>>> of the mother at a registry office.
No id the father got a Declaration of Parentage through a court >>>>>>>>> order.
It's a common fallacy and not many people know that. Even those >>>>>>>>> employed by government agencies assume that if a father's name is >>>>>>>>> on a birth certificate then they have PR.
Maybe they foolishly read the official government web page on the >>>>>>>> subject, which says:
A father usually has parental responsibility if he's either: >>>>>>>> * married to the child's mother
* listed on the birth certificate
https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-
parental- responsibility
The government is rather fond of web pages which simplify the law to >>>>>>> the point of uselessness for difficult cases. So I wouldn't totally >>>>>>> rely on it, especially not with the "usually".
I am interested to know whether you are right or Fredxx is right. >>>>>>> Though either way the Family Court could reverse the decision.
See:
<https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental- >>>>>> responsibility>
QUOTE:
In the UK, an unmarried father does not automatically have parental >>>>>> responsibility for his child. However, he can obtain it in several >>>>>> ways:
- Being named on the birth certificate – If the father is listed on >>>>>> the child’s birth certificate and the birth was registered after:
- 1 December 2003 in England and Wales
- 4 May 2006 in Scotland
- 15 April 2002 in Northern Ireland
[NB: So in order for the simple "on birth certificate" qualification >>>>>> not to automatically apply, the child has to [CURRENTLY - Ed.] be at >>>>>> least:
21 in E&W,
19 [in a few days' time] in Scotland or
23 in NI.]
- Parental Responsibility Agreement – The father and mother can
voluntarily sign a legal agreement granting him parental
responsibility.
Yes, in Scotland. And similarly in NI. But not in England and Wales. >>>>> Thanks, I've learnt something. My family's experience was in England.
The gov.uk website says that is IS the case in England, and has been
so (in effect) for child registration on or after 1 December 2003
(with analogous dates of 4 May 2006 in Scotland and 15 April 2002 for
NI).
Check the website.
- Parental Responsibility Order – If the mother does not agree, the >>>>>> father can apply to the court for an order granting him parental
responsibility.
- Marriage to the child’s mother – If the father later marries the >>>>>> mother, he automatically gains parental responsibility.
Parental responsibility gives the father legal rights and duties
regarding the child’s upbringing, including decisions about
education, medical treatment, and welfare.
ENDQUOTE
But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so years
(pace the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the father's >>>>>> father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is required.
Noooooo
Even from your own link:
Births registered in England and Wales
If the parents of a child are married when the child is born, or if
they’ve jointly adopted a child, both have parental responsibility[1].
Not applicable here (I never said it was)
They both keep parental responsibility if they later divorce.
Unmarried parents
An unmarried father can get parental responsibility for his child in 1 >>>>> of 3 ways:
jointly registering the birth of the child with the mother
(from 1 December 2003)
That's the only way that an unmarried father can be named on a birth
certificate - with his agreement, the mother's agreement (thereby
naming him as the father) and his presence at the register office for
the registration (as we know, it's completely different for fathers
married to the child's mother).
I did a quick AI search at CoPilot:
QUOTE:
Q: In England and Wales, can an unmarried mother name any old man as
the father of one or more of her childreb, or does he need to agree
with it?
A: In England and Wales, an unmarried mother cannot simply name any
man as the father of her child without his agreement. When registering >>>> a birth, if the parents are unmarried, the father’s name can only be >>>> included on the birth certificate if both parents are present at the
registration and agree to it.
If the mother registers the birth alone, she cannot name the father
unless she provides a legal document, such as a Declaration of
Parentage or a court order confirming paternity. If a man disputes
being named as the father, he can challenge it legally, often through
a paternity test or court proceedings. [1]
[1] See:
https://familylawspecialists.co.uk/unmarried-fathers-rights-in- the-uk/ >>>> ENDQUOTE
getting a parental responsibility agreement with the mother
getting a parental responsibility order from a court
You have, in another subthread, been given the basis why your
belief is wrong in terms of statute where the father is named on the >>>>> Birth Certificate by way of Declaration of Parentage Order (more
specifically NOT where birth of the child is registered, or re
registered, with the mother).
If you can find the statute that provides the basis of your claim,
namely, "But in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so
years (pace the slightly different date situation in Scotland), the
father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is
required",
I will be happy to eat humble pie.
[1] Even here it's not straightforward if the father is not
biologically the father and depends on circumstances.
****************I did not claim that there were no other circumstances in which a man
can claim PR. I merely pointed out that simply being on the birth
certificate is a clear route to it, for any child registration
completed on or after 1 December 2003 in E&W.
His being on the certificate cannot come about by bureaucratic
accident. The MOTHER has to agree to it. HE has to agree to it. They
both have to be present when the registration (or, as the case may
sometimes be, a re-registration) is completed.
Nooo. He can be put on the birth certificate by a court order giving him >>> parental responsibility. Neither he or the court needs the mother's
consent.
You are ignoring the fact that he still needs the mother's consent to
get onto the birth certificate even in a non-contested case.
Once again you are in denial that a Declaration of Parentage doesn't
need the mother's permission.
And that the GRO will add the fathers
name, because the court order will instruct them to, again without the mother's consent.
If you can prove otherwise feel free, but I know you can't.
I'm not asking you to eat anything. It's a slightly complex area (one
which I very occasionally used to have to deal with when I was working >>>> for a living). Even so, I wouldn't have been able to quote all the
references of my own knowledge. It certainly wasn't central to my work.
It isn't at all complex. I stated that in England and Wales, where the
father goes through the courts for an order of Declaration of Parentage
to get his name on the birth certificate, that this does not
automatically give him Parental Responsibility.
So, do you now agree that stating for a father to have Parental
Responsibility, "in the case of any child born in the last twenty or so
years (pace the slightly differet date situation in Scotland), the
father's simply being on the birth certificate is all that is required." >>> was always false?
Of course not. It would have been false before the specified date.
Why do you continue to deny it is still the case today?
As much as you
would like to find the statute, you simply won't, because it won't
support your claim. I have already given the reason quoting the relevant
acts for England and Wales.
The answer is yes or no, not paragraphs of irrelevance.
BTW I can assure you it is not automatic and not all that is required.
On Sat, 3 May 2025 18:21:20 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 03/05/2025 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the parson >>> is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and non-abusive, >>> then the motivation doesn't come into it.
It's criminal because it's illegal. The way the law is written, it *is*
the fact that someone is experiencing sexual gratification that makes
some offences illegal, for example voyeurism. This is pure puritanism.
And in what way is that different to the circumstances in which it is the fact that someone is experiencing financial gratification that makes some offences illegal? Is that pure socialism?
On 3 May 2025 at 18:21:20 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 03/05/2025 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:20:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on
motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't affect >>>>>> the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing the act.
There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that respect.
Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court.
That's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say that >>>> an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result.
Deliberately performing a sexual act without consent *is* criminal intent. >>>
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the parson >>> is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and non-abusive, >>> then the motivation doesn't come into it.
It's criminal because it's illegal. The way the law is written, it *is*
the fact that someone is experiencing sexual gratification that makes
some offences illegal, for example voyeurism. This is pure puritanism.
I agree with you there. The law should be re-framed as a breach of privacy. After all, the people being watched are offended by the watching, not the perpetrator's feelings. Unfortunately, the law in this country does not seem to like privacy. But we were talking about sexual assault, where there is no requirement that the the assault be done for sexual gratification.
On 03/05/2025 19:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 18:21:20 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 03/05/2025 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:20:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on
motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't >>>>>>> affect
the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing >>>>>> the act.
There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that >>>>>> respect.
Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court.
That's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say
that
an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result.
Deliberately performing a sexual act without consent *is* criminal
intent.
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the
parson
is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and
non-abusive,
then the motivation doesn't come into it.
It's criminal because it's illegal. The way the law is written, it *is*
the fact that someone is experiencing sexual gratification that makes
some offences illegal, for example voyeurism. This is pure puritanism.
I agree with you there. The law should be re-framed as a breach of
privacy.
After all, the people being watched are offended by the watching, not the
perpetrator's feelings. Unfortunately, the law in this country does
not seem
to like privacy. But we were talking about sexual assault, where there
is no
requirement that the the assault be done for sexual gratification.
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law on >voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where the
victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/05/2025 19:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 18:21:20 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 03/05/2025 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:20:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50, Mark Goodge wrote:Deliberately performing a sexual act without consent *is* criminal
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max Demian
<max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on >>>>>>>> motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't >>>>>>>> affect
the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing >>>>>>> the act.
There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that >>>>>>> respect.
Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court.
That's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say >>>>>> that
an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result. >>>>>
intent.
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the
parson
is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and
non-abusive,
then the motivation doesn't come into it.
It's criminal because it's illegal. The way the law is written, it *is* >>>> the fact that someone is experiencing sexual gratification that makes
some offences illegal, for example voyeurism. This is pure puritanism.
I agree with you there. The law should be re-framed as a breach of
privacy.
After all, the people being watched are offended by the watching, not
the
perpetrator's feelings. Unfortunately, the law in this country does
not seem
to like privacy. But we were talking about sexual assault, where there
is no
requirement that the the assault be done for sexual gratification.
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law on voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where the
victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Does anyone have that reasonable expectation in a public place?
On 08/05/2025 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law
on voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where
the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Does anyone have that reasonable expectation in a public place?
Is behind a bush a public or a private place?
On 08/05/2025 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/05/2025 19:50, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 3 May 2025 at 18:21:20 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 03/05/2025 14:49, Mark Goodge wrote:I agree with you there. The law should be re-framed as a breach of
On Fri, 2 May 2025 14:20:38 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 01/05/2025 10:50, Mark Goodge wrote:Deliberately performing a sexual act without consent *is* criminal >>>>>> intent.
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 18:05:37 +0100, Max DemianThat's a matter of whether the person has a criminal intent. To say >>>>>>> that
<max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
I don't see why whether an act is legal or not should depend on >>>>>>>>> motivations others can't know. This is thought crime. It doesn't >>>>>>>>> affect
the other person.
Lots of offences depend on the motivation of the person committing >>>>>>>> the act.
There's nothing particularly unusual about sexual offences in that >>>>>>>> respect.
Determining the mens rea is one of the key functions of a court. >>>>>>>
an act is only criminal if the parson is sexually motivated is
puritanism - the fear that someone experiences pleasure as a result. >>>>>>
And absolutely nobody is saying that an act is only criminal if the >>>>>> parson
is sexually motivated. To be criminal at all, it first has to be
non-consensual or otherwise abusive. If it's consensual and
non-abusive,
then the motivation doesn't come into it.
It's criminal because it's illegal. The way the law is written, it *is* >>>>> the fact that someone is experiencing sexual gratification that makes >>>>> some offences illegal, for example voyeurism. This is pure puritanism. >>>>
privacy.
After all, the people being watched are offended by the watching, not
the
perpetrator's feelings. Unfortunately, the law in this country does
not seem
to like privacy. But we were talking about sexual assault, where there >>>> is no
requirement that the the assault be done for sexual gratification.
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law on
voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where the
victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Does anyone have that reasonable expectation in a public place?
Is behind a bush a public or a private place?
On 08/05/2025 05:24 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/05/2025 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
[ ... ]
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law
on voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where
the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Does anyone have that reasonable expectation in a public place?
Is behind a bush a public or a private place?
I don't know. What do you say?
I'd imagine that the most obvious thing to look at is the location of
the bush. Are members of the public allowed to be in the space "behind"
the bush? Is it just a freestanding bush on the fringes of the local
rec? Is it overlooked by the rears of houses?
You'd need more information than just "behind a bush".
Is behind a bush a public or a private place?
On 08/05/2025 05:24 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/05/2025 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
[ ... ]
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law
on voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where
the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Does anyone have that reasonable expectation in a public place?
Is behind a bush a public or a private place?
I don't know. What do you say?
I'd imagine that the most obvious thing to look at is the location of
the bush. Are members of the public allowed to be in the space "behind"
the bush? Is it just a freestanding bush on the fringes of the local
rec? Is it overlooked by the rears of houses?
You'd need more information than just "behind a bush".
On 08/05/2025 17:44, JNugent wrote:
On 08/05/2025 05:24 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/05/2025 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
[ ... ]
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law
on voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where
the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Does anyone have that reasonable expectation in a public place?
Is behind a bush a public or a private place?
I don't know. What do you say?
I'd imagine that the most obvious thing to look at is the location of
the bush. Are members of the public allowed to be in the space
"behind" the bush? Is it just a freestanding bush on the fringes of
the local rec? Is it overlooked by the rears of houses?
You'd need more information than just "behind a bush".
Perhaps there is an overlap with the recent "Upskirting" law.
To be unlawful the motive has to be
a)obtaining sexual gratification
b)humiliating, alarming or distressing B.
The other day I encountered an interesting scenario. I was in a
restaurant at lunchtime. One of the waitresses had a very short skirt
and when she bent over any of the tables her bottom was in plain view.
She was wearing a thong but she might as well not have been.
I thought of photographing this as an example of a ridiculous or
incongruous sight in a public place but of course I quickly realised
that I could have been prosecuted for doing so. My motives were neither sexual gratification (really, the sight put me off my food) or
humiliating or alarming or distressing the waitress, whose face was not visible anyway. Anyway, I didn't take a photo. Nor did I have a quiet
word with the waitress or the management because I'd have found that too embarrassing. I have my doubts about whether upskirting should really be
an offence if it is impossible to identify the victim.
On 8 May 2025 at 17:44:46 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2025 05:24 PM, Max Demian wrote:
On 08/05/2025 15:15, JNugent wrote:
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
[ ... ]
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law
on voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where
the victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
Does anyone have that reasonable expectation in a public place?
Is behind a bush a public or a private place?
I don't know. What do you say?
I'd imagine that the most obvious thing to look at is the location of
the bush. Are members of the public allowed to be in the space "behind"
the bush? Is it just a freestanding bush on the fringes of the local
rec? Is it overlooked by the rears of houses?
You'd need more information than just "behind a bush".
An 18" high bush in a small front garden by a main road is almost certainly a private place; but not one where a person might have reasonable expectation of
privacy standing behind it.
On 08/05/2025 06:01 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
An 18" high bush in a small front garden by a main road is almost certainly a
private place; but not one where a person might have reasonable expectation of
privacy standing behind it.
It shows you how complicated the subject is.
On 08/05/2025 06:01 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 May 2025 at 17:44:46 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I'd imagine that the most obvious thing to look at is the location of
the bush. Are members of the public allowed to be in the space "behind"
the bush? Is it just a freestanding bush on the fringes of the local
rec? Is it overlooked by the rears of houses?
You'd need more information than just "behind a bush".
An 18" high bush in a small front garden by a main road is almost
certainly a
private place; but not one where a person might have reasonable
expectation of
privacy standing behind it.
It shows you how complicated the subject is.
As an aside, I did once hear of a cohort of people (only the males), unwelcome in the nearby town, whose habits apparently included squatting
in residential front gardens instead of seeking out a public lavatory.
No reason to disbelieve it.
On 08/05/2025 17:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 08 May 2025 15:15:32 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law on
voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where the
victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
It's not quite that clear. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 67 says that >> voyeurism is observing another person "doing a private act" (obviously
qualified by consent and intent, but for the sake of this discussion we can >> disregard that). So the question is whether "a private act" can only be
performed in a private place, or whether it's possible to carry out a
private act in a public place.
That question is answered by section 68 of the Act, which says that "a
person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the
circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy". So
voyeurism can be committed in a public place, but only if the person being >> observed is in a location which would reasonably be expected to provide
privacy. So the next question, then, is what is necessary to create a
reasonable expectation of privacy.
That isn't answered in statute. But the courts have concluded that if
someone takes reasonable steps to avoid being observed, then that can make >> the act private. One key case is R v Swyer [2007] EWCA Crim 204, where the >> defendant had been videoing participants in the Great North Run going into >> bushes in the park to urinate. The court concluded that deliberately
minimising the possibility of being casually observed made the act private. >>
Subsequent cases have determined that whether or not sufficient effort had >> been made to avoid being observed is a question of fact to be determined by >> the court. That is, the "circumstances" referred to in section 68 are to be >> decided on a case by case basis, taking all the evidence into account.
Someone who only made a minimal effort to avoid being observed would
probably not be able to persuade a court that their act was private. But
someone who took reasonable care to do so probably would. Taking the
urination example, someone who went into a shrubbery so that they were
effectively surrounded on all sides would have a reasonable expectation of >> privacy, but someone who merely went just a bit off the side of the road
would not.
I can't find any case law on it, but I think, also, that the nature of the >> act and the reason for it may affect the decision of a court. Urination is a >> basic human need; someone (eg, a marathon runner) who is outdoors in public >> for an extended period of time may have no alternative but to find a handy >> place to take a leak even if they can't find an actual toilet. If so, then a >> best effort attempt at privacy (eg, going into the bushes) is enough to make >> it private. But some other private acts have no such necessity; a person who >> went into the bushes in the park in order to engage in autoeroticism may
well find that a court would conclude that he secretly hoped to be observed >> and therefore the act was not private in the sense intended by legislation >> (and, further, he might also find that a different court may well consider >> that far from being a victim under section 67 of the Act, he is the
perpetrator under section 66).
To make such an assumption about the difference between the intention of urination and wanking is pure legal prejudice. Either could be done with
the expectation of privacy or exhibition.
On Thu, 08 May 2025 15:15:32 +0100, JNugent <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 07/05/2025 06:18 PM, Max Demian wrote:
But you can be done for voyeurism in a public place, if the victim
chooses to do something private in public.
Even if "victim" is the right word in that scenario, doesn't the law on
voyeurism only apply in situations (and therefore, places) where the
victim has a reasonable expectation of privacy?
It's not quite that clear. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 67 says that voyeurism is observing another person "doing a private act" (obviously qualified by consent and intent, but for the sake of this discussion we can disregard that). So the question is whether "a private act" can only be performed in a private place, or whether it's possible to carry out a
private act in a public place.
That question is answered by section 68 of the Act, which says that "a
person is doing a private act if the person is in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy". So
voyeurism can be committed in a public place, but only if the person being observed is in a location which would reasonably be expected to provide privacy. So the next question, then, is what is necessary to create a reasonable expectation of privacy.
That isn't answered in statute. But the courts have concluded that if
someone takes reasonable steps to avoid being observed, then that can make the act private. One key case is R v Swyer [2007] EWCA Crim 204, where the defendant had been videoing participants in the Great North Run going into bushes in the park to urinate. The court concluded that deliberately minimising the possibility of being casually observed made the act private.
Subsequent cases have determined that whether or not sufficient effort had been made to avoid being observed is a question of fact to be determined by the court. That is, the "circumstances" referred to in section 68 are to be decided on a case by case basis, taking all the evidence into account. Someone who only made a minimal effort to avoid being observed would
probably not be able to persuade a court that their act was private. But someone who took reasonable care to do so probably would. Taking the urination example, someone who went into a shrubbery so that they were effectively surrounded on all sides would have a reasonable expectation of privacy, but someone who merely went just a bit off the side of the road would not.
I can't find any case law on it, but I think, also, that the nature of the act and the reason for it may affect the decision of a court. Urination is a basic human need; someone (eg, a marathon runner) who is outdoors in public for an extended period of time may have no alternative but to find a handy place to take a leak even if they can't find an actual toilet. If so, then a best effort attempt at privacy (eg, going into the bushes) is enough to make it private. But some other private acts have no such necessity; a person who went into the bushes in the park in order to engage in autoeroticism may
well find that a court would conclude that he secretly hoped to be observed and therefore the act was not private in the sense intended by legislation (and, further, he might also find that a different court may well consider that far from being a victim under section 67 of the Act, he is the perpetrator under section 66).
On 08/05/2025 17:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
I can't find any case law on it, but I think, also, that the nature of the >> act and the reason for it may affect the decision of a court. Urination is a >> basic human need; someone (eg, a marathon runner) who is outdoors in public >> for an extended period of time may have no alternative but to find a handy >> place to take a leak even if they can't find an actual toilet. If so, then a >> best effort attempt at privacy (eg, going into the bushes) is enough to make >> it private. But some other private acts have no such necessity; a person who >> went into the bushes in the park in order to engage in autoeroticism may
well find that a court would conclude that he secretly hoped to be observed >> and therefore the act was not private in the sense intended by legislation >> (and, further, he might also find that a different court may well consider >> that far from being a victim under section 67 of the Act, he is the
perpetrator under section 66).
To make such an assumption about the difference between the intention of >urination and wanking is pure legal prejudice. Either could be done with
the expectation of privacy or exhibition.
(Marathons? You weren't thinking about Paula Radcliffe by any chance?)
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 08/05/2025 17:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
I can't find any case law on it, but I think, also, that the nature of the >>> act and the reason for it may affect the decision of a court. Urination is a
basic human need; someone (eg, a marathon runner) who is outdoors in public >>> for an extended period of time may have no alternative but to find a handy >>> place to take a leak even if they can't find an actual toilet. If so, then a
best effort attempt at privacy (eg, going into the bushes) is enough to make
it private. But some other private acts have no such necessity; a person who
went into the bushes in the park in order to engage in autoeroticism may >>> well find that a court would conclude that he secretly hoped to be observed >>> and therefore the act was not private in the sense intended by legislation >>> (and, further, he might also find that a different court may well consider >>> that far from being a victim under section 67 of the Act, he is the
perpetrator under section 66).
To make such an assumption about the difference between the intention of
urination and wanking is pure legal prejudice. Either could be done with
the expectation of privacy or exhibition.
Interestingly, at least some US states appear to treat public urination as a sexual crime regardless of the perpetrator's intentions. Which has always seemed a little odd to me.
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:00:10 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 08/05/2025 17:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
I can't find any case law on it, but I think, also, that the nature of the >>> act and the reason for it may affect the decision of a court. Urination is a
basic human need; someone (eg, a marathon runner) who is outdoors in public >>> for an extended period of time may have no alternative but to find a handy >>> place to take a leak even if they can't find an actual toilet. If so, then a
best effort attempt at privacy (eg, going into the bushes) is enough to make
it private. But some other private acts have no such necessity; a person who
went into the bushes in the park in order to engage in autoeroticism may >>> well find that a court would conclude that he secretly hoped to be observed >>> and therefore the act was not private in the sense intended by legislation >>> (and, further, he might also find that a different court may well consider >>> that far from being a victim under section 67 of the Act, he is the
perpetrator under section 66).
To make such an assumption about the difference between the intention of
urination and wanking is pure legal prejudice. Either could be done with
the expectation of privacy or exhibition.
Well, the point is that one is necessary and the other is not, and the necessity in the case of the one that is can arise in a public place.
On 08/05/2025 20:10, JNugent wrote:
On 08/05/2025 06:01 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 8 May 2025 at 17:44:46 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
I'd imagine that the most obvious thing to look at is the location of
the bush. Are members of the public allowed to be in the space "behind" >>>> the bush? Is it just a freestanding bush on the fringes of the local
rec? Is it overlooked by the rears of houses?
You'd need more information than just "behind a bush".
An 18" high bush in a small front garden by a main road is almost
certainly a
private place; but not one where a person might have reasonable
expectation of
privacy standing behind it.
It shows you how complicated the subject is.
As an aside, I did once hear of a cohort of people (only the males),
unwelcome in the nearby town, whose habits apparently included
squatting in residential front gardens instead of seeking out a public
lavatory. No reason to disbelieve it.
Squatting doing what? #1 or #2? If they're squatting rather than
standing to urinate they're obviously not English. Probably immigrants. <g>
On 09/05/2025 14:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:00:10 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 08/05/2025 17:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
I can't find any case law on it, but I think, also, that the nature of the >>>> act and the reason for it may affect the decision of a court. Urination is a
basic human need; someone (eg, a marathon runner) who is outdoors in public
for an extended period of time may have no alternative but to find a handy >>>> place to take a leak even if they can't find an actual toilet. If so, then a
best effort attempt at privacy (eg, going into the bushes) is enough to make
it private. But some other private acts have no such necessity; a person who
went into the bushes in the park in order to engage in autoeroticism may >>>> well find that a court would conclude that he secretly hoped to be observed
and therefore the act was not private in the sense intended by legislation >>>> (and, further, he might also find that a different court may well consider >>>> that far from being a victim under section 67 of the Act, he is the
perpetrator under section 66).
To make such an assumption about the difference between the intention of >>> urination and wanking is pure legal prejudice. Either could be done with >>> the expectation of privacy or exhibition.
Well, the point is that one is necessary and the other is not, and the
necessity in the case of the one that is can arise in a public place.
The essence of male sexuality is that a man produces sperm throughout
his adult life, and has to put it somewhere.
On 9 May 2025 at 18:18:11 BST, "Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 09/05/2025 14:41, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Fri, 9 May 2025 13:00:10 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:
On 08/05/2025 17:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
I can't find any case law on it, but I think, also, that the nature of the
act and the reason for it may affect the decision of a court. Urination is a
basic human need; someone (eg, a marathon runner) who is outdoors in public
for an extended period of time may have no alternative but to find a handy
place to take a leak even if they can't find an actual toilet. If so, then a
best effort attempt at privacy (eg, going into the bushes) is enough to make
it private. But some other private acts have no such necessity; a person who
went into the bushes in the park in order to engage in autoeroticism may >>>>> well find that a court would conclude that he secretly hoped to be observed
and therefore the act was not private in the sense intended by legislation
(and, further, he might also find that a different court may well consider
that far from being a victim under section 67 of the Act, he is the
perpetrator under section 66).
To make such an assumption about the difference between the intention of >>>> urination and wanking is pure legal prejudice. Either could be done with >>>> the expectation of privacy or exhibition.
Well, the point is that one is necessary and the other is not, and the
necessity in the case of the one that is can arise in a public place.
The essence of male sexuality is that a man produces sperm throughout
his adult life, and has to put it somewhere.
Sadly for your logic it is reabsorbed if not expelled.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:27:11 |
| Calls: | 9,821 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,389 |