UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
UK and North American politics. => A look at British politics in the light of the decision to leave the EU. => Topic started by: Venturi Swirl on February 14, 2020, 06:17:52 PM
-
Couldn’t agree more with this article. I was supporting Nandy in the leadership election but she’s gone done the wormhole like Wrong Daily now, so Keir it will have to be.
Labour’s trans pledge says anyone who disagrees is a bigot
new
There is a bizarre race for ideological purity on the issue of trans rights and it is making many party members uneasy
Janice Turner
Friday February 14 2020, 5.00pm, The Times
Lisa Nandy brands herself as Labour’s truth-speaker. Rational, grounded, fearless of factions, the only leadership candidate prepared to tackle the self-delusion and disconnect which lost four elections, she’d won many prospective votes, including mine. Until Tuesday, when Nandy signed up to a witch-hunt of thousands of (mainly female) party members, including me.
The Labour trans pledge is an astonishingly totalitarian document. It not only demands signatories “accept there is no material conflict between trans rights and women’s rights” but says anyone who disagrees is a bigot. It names Woman’s Place UK and the LGB Alliance as “hate groups” whose supporters are transphobic and must therefore be expelled. Even though these were set up chiefly to defend women’s single-sex spaces enshrined in Labour’s own 2010 Equality Act and upheld in the party’s 2019 manifesto.
So calm, thoughtful, unite-the-party Lisa Nandy wants to expel supporters of the very platform on which she was just re-elected! Chuck on the pyre life-long trade unionists like NUT president Kiri Tunks and Ruth Serwotka, Corbyn policy chief Lachlan Stuart, ex-MP Laura Pidcock and Stonewall founder Simon Fanshawe. Sprinkle the bonfire with thousands of horrified women members who tweeted, Spartacus-style. #expelme. Shove on top John McDonnell and Andy Burnham, who have both met WPUK and, Lisa, who will be left?
I mention Nandy because although every leadership candidate except Sir Keir Starmer has now signed this pledge, she has doubled down. There are no spaces at all, she said on Radio 4’s Today programme, where male-bodied people should be excluded. She likened the debate over women’s refuges to fights between Eritrean and Ethiopian boys when she worked at a Centrepoint homeless shelter: ie a woman and any male who self-identifies as a woman are materially the same and must be treated as such. From changing rooms to sports to, presumably, female beauticians being compelled to wax — as Canadian trans activist Jessica Yaniv demanded — a trans woman’s testicles.
Nandy is not the first politician who, sucked into the gender vortex, loses all reason. This week Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle confounded biologists by saying that “sex is not binary”. During the election Lib Dem Dr Sarah Wollaston denied that a baby’s biological sex is observed at birth; potential Lib Dem leader Layla Moran believes women can differentiate male predators from self-identified trans women by looking into their souls.
Meanwhile in the US Democratic primaries. Elizabeth Warren, desperate to seduce Bernie Sanders’ supporters, posted her pronouns on her Twitter page, pledged that every trans woman prisoner (regardless of having committed sexual offences) should be relocated to the female estate, and then declared that as US president her education secretary would first be interviewed and approved by a designated “trans child”.
How have LGBT issues, in particular gender self-ID, become such a moral test of politicians in progressive parties? Sociologists speak of how organisations can be overwhelmed by “purity spirals”. This is when a group grades its members by a single value, which has no upper limit or agreed interpretation. Those who seek power must demonstrate their purity in ever more abstruse ways: those judged “impure” are denounced and destroyed.
Both Labour and the US Democrats have several concurrent purity spirals. Members fight to demonstrate their anti-racism by denouncing perceived white supremacy or by supporting no-border immigration policies. A US gay rights purity spiral means that although married to a man, Pete Buttigieg is accused of being “not gay enough” because as a chino-wearing, church-going ex-serviceman his lifestyle apes “heteronormative” society rather than “queer culture”. No matter that he’s bravely challenging prejudices of mainstream US voters for whom he’s too damn gay. Fighting a primary now, Barack Obama would be shredded as not black enough.
But the trans issue — specifically whether gender self-ID should be enshrined in law — is the purity spiral du jour. The Labour trans pledge transformed the leadership election from a civil, even dull contest, in which feminists felt they had a choice, into a grim, least-worst-option scenario. Every candidate has recited the catechism “trans women are women”, leaving members to assess whether they mean it literally, like Nandy, so single-sex exemptions are toast, or as an assertion of existing legal rights of trans women to be recognised as women, in most circumstances, which no one would dispute. This is the position it is hoped that sane lawyer Starmer holds.
So why are they submitting to this test? Because progressive politicians’ fear of being “on the wrong side of history” trumps all sense. Gender self-ID is constantly presented as the new gay rights. Yet gay men and lesbians only demanded to love freely. They did not materially encroach on any other group’s rights. Nor do most trans folk who simply wish to live without discrimination or violence and are horrified by activists who demand in their name that women surrender hard-won rights and safeguards.
Working on the 2019 Labour manifesto, Lachlan Stuart observed that LGBT activists were not “driven by a motivation to improve the quality of life for trans people” such as increased mental and physical health provision, only “to erode or erase the political rights of female people.” Their alarming central goal was to open up all female single-sex spaces to anyone who identified as a woman.
How will voters, who have hitherto been unaware of this arcane debate, feel about a Labour Party fully committed to ending historic safeguards? To a party which believes any male person should be allowed to legally change sex without qualification or checks, leaving women and girls vulnerable yet unable to object? Will Labour leaders pull out of the purity spiral and heed the fears of thousands of women members? Or will they, as that nice Lisa Nandy demands, simply chuck them out?
-
I have to admit that I don't understand most of what appears to be going on. But Transgender Men sent to Women's Prisons are committing Sexual Assault. And Teenaged Girls forced to share changing rooms with Transgender Boys are obviously at risk. Perhaps we need a Gang Rape Scandal.
-
Couldn’t agree more with this article. I was supporting Nandy in the leadership election but she’s gone done the wormhole like Wrong Daily now, so Keir it will have to be.
Labour’s trans pledge says anyone who disagrees is a bigot
new
There is a bizarre race for ideological purity on the issue of trans rights and it is making many party members uneasy
Janice Turner
Friday February 14 2020, 5.00pm, The Times
Lisa Nandy brands herself as Labour’s truth-speaker. Rational, grounded, fearless of factions, the only leadership candidate prepared to tackle the self-delusion and disconnect which lost four elections, she’d won many prospective votes, including mine. Until Tuesday, when Nandy signed up to a witch-hunt of thousands of (mainly female) party members, including me.
The Labour trans pledge is an astonishingly totalitarian document. It not only demands signatories “accept there is no material conflict between trans rights and women’s rights” but says anyone who disagrees is a bigot. It names Woman’s Place UK and the LGB Alliance as “hate groups” whose supporters are transphobic and must therefore be expelled. Even though these were set up chiefly to defend women’s single-sex spaces enshrined in Labour’s own 2010 Equality Act and upheld in the party’s 2019 manifesto.
So calm, thoughtful, unite-the-party Lisa Nandy wants to expel supporters of the very platform on which she was just re-elected! Chuck on the pyre life-long trade unionists like NUT president Kiri Tunks and Ruth Serwotka, Corbyn policy chief Lachlan Stuart, ex-MP Laura Pidcock and Stonewall founder Simon Fanshawe. Sprinkle the bonfire with thousands of horrified women members who tweeted, Spartacus-style. #expelme. Shove on top John McDonnell and Andy Burnham, who have both met WPUK and, Lisa, who will be left?
I mention Nandy because although every leadership candidate except Sir Keir Starmer has now signed this pledge, she has doubled down. There are no spaces at all, she said on Radio 4’s Today programme, where male-bodied people should be excluded. She likened the debate over women’s refuges to fights between Eritrean and Ethiopian boys when she worked at a Centrepoint homeless shelter: ie a woman and any male who self-identifies as a woman are materially the same and must be treated as such. From changing rooms to sports to, presumably, female beauticians being compelled to wax — as Canadian trans activist Jessica Yaniv demanded — a trans woman’s testicles.
Nandy is not the first politician who, sucked into the gender vortex, loses all reason. This week Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle confounded biologists by saying that “sex is not binary”. During the election Lib Dem Dr Sarah Wollaston denied that a baby’s biological sex is observed at birth; potential Lib Dem leader Layla Moran believes women can differentiate male predators from self-identified trans women by looking into their souls.
Meanwhile in the US Democratic primaries. Elizabeth Warren, desperate to seduce Bernie Sanders’ supporters, posted her pronouns on her Twitter page, pledged that every trans woman prisoner (regardless of having committed sexual offences) should be relocated to the female estate, and then declared that as US president her education secretary would first be interviewed and approved by a designated “trans child”.
How have LGBT issues, in particular gender self-ID, become such a moral test of politicians in progressive parties? Sociologists speak of how organisations can be overwhelmed by “purity spirals”. This is when a group grades its members by a single value, which has no upper limit or agreed interpretation. Those who seek power must demonstrate their purity in ever more abstruse ways: those judged “impure” are denounced and destroyed.
Both Labour and the US Democrats have several concurrent purity spirals. Members fight to demonstrate their anti-racism by denouncing perceived white supremacy or by supporting no-border immigration policies. A US gay rights purity spiral means that although married to a man, Pete Buttigieg is accused of being “not gay enough” because as a chino-wearing, church-going ex-serviceman his lifestyle apes “heteronormative” society rather than “queer culture”. No matter that he’s bravely challenging prejudices of mainstream US voters for whom he’s too damn gay. Fighting a primary now, Barack Obama would be shredded as not black enough.
But the trans issue — specifically whether gender self-ID should be enshrined in law — is the purity spiral du jour. The Labour trans pledge transformed the leadership election from a civil, even dull contest, in which feminists felt they had a choice, into a grim, least-worst-option scenario. Every candidate has recited the catechism “trans women are women”, leaving members to assess whether they mean it literally, like Nandy, so single-sex exemptions are toast, or as an assertion of existing legal rights of trans women to be recognised as women, in most circumstances, which no one would dispute. This is the position it is hoped that sane lawyer Starmer holds.
So why are they submitting to this test? Because progressive politicians’ fear of being “on the wrong side of history” trumps all sense. Gender self-ID is constantly presented as the new gay rights. Yet gay men and lesbians only demanded to love freely. They did not materially encroach on any other group’s rights. Nor do most trans folk who simply wish to live without discrimination or violence and are horrified by activists who demand in their name that women surrender hard-won rights and safeguards.
Working on the 2019 Labour manifesto, Lachlan Stuart observed that LGBT activists were not “driven by a motivation to improve the quality of life for trans people” such as increased mental and physical health provision, only “to erode or erase the political rights of female people.” Their alarming central goal was to open up all female single-sex spaces to anyone who identified as a woman.
How will voters, who have hitherto been unaware of this arcane debate, feel about a Labour Party fully committed to ending historic safeguards? To a party which believes any male person should be allowed to legally change sex without qualification or checks, leaving women and girls vulnerable yet unable to object? Will Labour leaders pull out of the purity spiral and heed the fears of thousands of women members? Or will they, as that nice Lisa Nandy demands, simply chuck them out?
The substance of this debate is not what rankles me, it’s that so much time, energy and newsprint is being taken up with it while one in four of our children live in poverty. Who will best address this during the reign of a government with such a huge majority and very little moral fibre is the real debate we should be having.
-
The substance of this debate is not what rankles me, it’s that so much time, energy and newsprint is being taken up with it while one in four of our children live in poverty. Who will best address this during the reign of a government with such a huge majority and very little moral fibre is the real debate we should be having.
I think the substance of this debate IS and should be troubling for women born women in this country. Whilst it might be a distraction from other issues I don’t think the seriousness of what is being promulgated here should be downplayed.
-
The substance of this debate is not what rankles me, it’s that so much time, energy and newsprint is being taken up with it while one in four of our children live in poverty. Who will best address this during the reign of a government with such a huge majority and very little moral fibre is the real debate we should be having.
This a misrepresentation, Faith. Any child living in poverty is doing so because of their parents.
What has Trans Rights got to do with The Labour Party?
-
This a misrepresentation, Faith. Any child living in poverty is doing so because of their parents.
What has Trans Rights got to do with The Labour Party?
And why when we are told that more people are in employment than ever before is there more poverty ?
-
I listened To Sir Keir wriggling himself out of a tight corner on this issue on yesterday’s R4 “This Morning” show. He was very lucky to have had such a benign interviewer imo. Someone a bit more aggressive in their questioning would really have exposed the cognitive dissonance that this issue brings out in “woke” politicians.
-
I listened To Sir Keir wriggling himself out of a tight corner on this issue on yesterday’s R4 “This Morning” show. He was very lucky to have had such a benign interviewer imo. Someone a bit more aggressive in their questioning would really have exposed the cognitive dissonance that this issue brings out in “woke” politicians.
And people still wouldn’t care.
-
And people still wouldn’t care.
That is the bigger issue here Faith. It seems like politicians are trying to deflect from the real issues of poverty, bad housing, lack of housing,appalling education from nursery to university. transport etc. Instead of being educated without bias and indoctrinated about policies enforced with vigor about things which should not be part of a school curriculum.
The actual scale of child anxiety/depression in Scotland alone is very worrying. How does it help a child who has had little to eat because of his/her parents are buying drink/drugs to be told that they are trans phobic because they don't really care about one boy in class who wants to be a girl or girl wants to be a boy.
It is a disgrace AND the money it costs to employ 'special people' who help children trans form into another gender is shocking. This, like global warming cr'#p, is becoming big business! Performing surgery on children is NOT progressive and there is no input from some parents- no discussion. The child wants the child gets- until they realize they are either gay/straight/or bi sexual! As has happened! and this cannot be reversed.
People care about what is going on around them- the 'woke' agenda' is being ripped up by the masses- because they know who it is coming from!
The politicians should do the same and grow some.
-
That is the bigger issue here Faith. It seems like politicians are trying to deflect from the real issues of poverty, bad housing, lack of housing,appalling education from nursery to university. transport etc. Instead of being educated without bias and indoctrinated about policies enforced with vigor about things which should not be part of a school curriculum.
The actual scale of child anxiety/depression in Scotland alone is very worrying. How does it help a child who has had little to eat because of his/her parents are buying drink/drugs to be told that they are trans phobic because they don't really care about one boy in class who wants to be a girl or girl wants to be a boy.
It is a disgrace AND the money it costs to employ 'special people' who help children trans form into another gender is shocking. This, like global warming cr'#p, is becoming big business! Performing surgery on children is NOT progressive and there is no input from some parents- no discussion. The child wants the child gets- until they realize they are either gay/straight/or bi sexual! As has happened! and this cannot be reversed.
People care about what is going on around them- the 'woke' agenda' is being ripped up by the masses- because they know who it is coming from!
The politicians should do the same and grow some.
I can’t disagree with most of that.
-
This a misrepresentation, Faith. Any child living in poverty is doing so because of their parents.
What has Trans Rights got to do with The Labour Party?
What has Trans Rights got to do with The Labour Party?
Don't know but I can share that the wonderful SNP have open arms to this and taken it to our education system.
read on: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1247405/drag-queen-primary-school-flowjob-twitter-glencoates-council-apology
The worst thing about this is; this school is in a very deprived area poverty/food banks. and they get hit with this shit! Give them real edible food not food for thoughts.
-
I think it’s fair to say that it’s only the far left who believe in no platforming, and insisting we all think the same politically correct way or be labelled Nazis.
-
I think it’s fair to say that it’s only the far left who believe in no platforming, and insisting we all think the same politically correct way or be labelled Nazis.
That is why I use every opportunity to call the spade a spade.
Stalin (similar tactics and ideology) as left wing-use the scare the name 'Nazi'-at anyone who challenges the thought police (although Stalin just killed them for their 'thinking') throw Stalin at them and its squirm, squirm, squirm.
I don't mind being called names, Islamophobic, xenophobic,[ censored word]emitic,racist- it means nothing to me and they are all made up names to create criminals and disharmony. JUST like STALIN and HITLER!!
-
The reviled Melanie Philips making perfect sense on the ostracism suffered by Suzanne Moore for the views she dared express in the Guardian re the Trans issue:
“Obviously, the attempts to silence Moore and numerous others who offend against woke dogma are a blow against freedom of expression, the bulwark of a free society. More sinister and profound, labelling such dissidents as enemies of humanity is designed to terrorise others into disavowing both them and their ideas.
This enforcement of dogma, complete with metaphorically burning heretics at the professional stake or subjecting them to Orwellian smears and character assassination, smacks of the medieval inquisition, French Revolution or Soviet communism.
In response to the furore over Suzanne Moore, there have been references to The Guardian being a “great liberal newspaper”. This is about four decades out of date. It stopped being a liberal paper when liberalism became corrupted by ideologies which permit no opposition and are therefore inimical to truth, freedom and reason.
Suzanne Moore wrote: “I self-identify as a woman who won’t go down quietly.” We may not agree with everything she says, and she may not welcome all of us as supporters, but those who stand for freedom against such sinister attempts at social and cultural control will be cheering her on.”
I mean, who could seriously disagree with a word of that?
-
The reviled Melanie Philips making perfect sense on the ostracism suffered by Suzanne Moore for the views she dared express in the Guardian re the Trans issue:
“Obviously, the attempts to silence Moore and numerous others who offend against woke dogma are a blow against freedom of expression, the bulwark of a free society. More sinister and profound, labelling such dissidents as enemies of humanity is designed to terrorise others into disavowing both them and their ideas.
This enforcement of dogma, complete with metaphorically burning heretics at the professional stake or subjecting them to Orwellian smears and character assassination, smacks of the medieval inquisition, French Revolution or Soviet communism.
In response to the furore over Suzanne Moore, there have been references to The Guardian being a “great liberal newspaper”. This is about four decades out of date. It stopped being a liberal paper when liberalism became corrupted by ideologies which permit no opposition and are therefore inimical to truth, freedom and reason.
Suzanne Moore wrote: “I self-identify as a woman who won’t go down quietly.” We may not agree with everything she says, and she may not welcome all of us as supporters, but those who stand for freedom against such sinister attempts at social and cultural control will be cheering her on.”
I mean, who could seriously disagree with a word of that?
This Link is from the states, seems some are not afraid to stand up to it or talk about it or print it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7NFB9YribI
the best description of the 'trans' persons behavior is IMO like this persons comments: "Neca Bibi 9 months ago
-Such hypocrisy. So he feels unsafe changing with other boys, and feels his concerns should be addressed. But girls that feel unsafe changing in front of a biological boy, should be ignored. Hmmm? 🤔 Seems a little hypocritical, self absorbed and selfish to me.
"
And there are trans people who do not want the publicity or the support of others who seem to making criminals out of people who have an opinion!
Schools SHOULD NOT be the spring board to define gender issues. It has been highlighted- and a study is trying to get information to confirm that children who are confused about sexuality are being 'diagnosed ' as trans people. Also some on the mental health spectrum are being 'groomed' for want of a better word to believe they are TRANS. These children may be homosexual/ bi sexual and not trans. Who decides?
If we are going down the road of allowing trans people to compete in games and share girls/boys only spaces then we need to have a third wheel. Trans sports and toilets/changing rooms.
-
I have to admit that I don't understand most of what appears to be going on. But Transgender Men sent to Women's Prisons are committing Sexual Assault. And Teenaged Girls forced to share changing rooms with Transgender Boys are obviously at risk. Perhaps we need a Gang Rape Scandal.
Can you point to an instance where a transgender male, after being transferred to a female prison has or have been accused of sexual assault?
The same with teenage girls who are forced to share changing rooms with “transgender boys”
There are lots of teenage girls, can you tell me of one single transgender male, or for that matter female?
Gang rape? How about a calm and logical approach?
-
Can you point to an instance where a transgender male, after being transferred to a female prison has or have been accused of sexual assault?
The same with teenage girls who are forced to share changing rooms with “transgender boys”
There are lots of teenage girls, can you tell me of one single transgender male, or for that matter female?
Gang rape? How about a calm and logical approach?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
-
She, is not a transgender woman, according to the courts she (he?) put herself in that position solely to take advantage of women.
That isn’t a transgender person it’s possibly a psychotic person hiding in what they see as a liberal background. A complete failure to understand the situation and more importantly the person as a sHe obviously had an agenda. This can be difficult to find but a transgender male to female would not be a dominant partner.
Information on this could be found by observing the subject.
-
She, is not a transgender woman, according to the courts she (he?) put herself in that position solely to take advantage of women.
That isn’t a transgender person it’s possibly a psychotic person hiding in what they see as a liberal background. A complete failure to understand the situation and more importantly the person as a sHe obviously had an agenda. This can be difficult to find but a transgender male to female would not be a dominant partner.
Information on this could be found by observing the subject.
But that is exactly what the problem is, and what some groups including those Labour leadership candidates have signed up to. They reckon anyone who identifies as a woman (even those with meat, two veg a beard and a baritone) should be treated as a woman and indeed IS a woman biologically iff that is what they choose. They want the law changed so that if you were a convicted rapist you could then self identify as a woman and the state would be obligated to house you in a women’s prison. That is what is so bonkers.
-
This is obviously totally and utterly unacceptable to any right minded (definition?) person.
This is also one reason why I can see the Labour Party disappearing up it’s own rectum quite soon.
-
This is obviously totally and utterly unacceptable to any right minded (definition?) person.
This is also one reason why I can see the Labour Party disappearing up it’s own rectum quite soon.
The only prospective leader (and almost dead cert to win the race) Sir Keir refused to sign up to this nonsense but he also refused to come out and say it was nonsense, which is a bit of a cop out.
-
The only prospective leader (and almost dead cert to win the race) Sir Keir refused to sign up to this nonsense but he also refused to come out and say it was nonsense, which is a bit of a cop out.
This also needs to be addressed: Womens sport.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/13/transgender-athletes-girls-sports-high-school
We have disabled athletes who have their own Olympics-sports - what if 'transgender' males present as women to compete. This is a real smack in the face a double whammy if you like.
Perhaps if we are having a sexual identity issue we should have a section just for them. their own toilets and changing rooms etc.
My friends son uses the disabled toilets when not at home.
-
This also needs to be addressed: Womens sport.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/13/transgender-athletes-girls-sports-high-school
We have disabled athletes who have their own Olympics-sports - what if 'transgender' males present as women to compete. This is a real smack in the face a double whammy if you like.
Perhaps if we are having a sexual identity issue we should have a section just for them. their own toilets and changing rooms etc.
My friends son uses the disabled toilets when not at home.
Everyone and their aunties use disabled toilets. Why should transgender men or women be any different ?
-
Everyone and their aunties use disabled toilets. Why should transgender men or women be any different ?
Why are you trying to make out I am against trans people using disabled toilets? Please try and read my posts.
The point I was making is my friends son who is Tans uses the disabled toilets when he is out side.
He doesn't want to use male /female/gender neutral toilets. He is happy to discuss why he was born a female but prefers to be addressed as male, and will go through full transition when he feels like it. He is also very vocal about the focus on people who don't want the focus on them. He wouldn't use gender neutral toilets if they became the only one in a building. So the gender politics is not a vote winner by all.
-
Why are you trying to make out I am against trans people using disabled toilets? Please try and read my posts.
The point I was making is my friends son who is Tans uses the disabled toilets when he is out side.
He doesn't want to use male /female/gender neutral toilets. He is happy to discuss why he was born a female but prefers to be addressed as male, and will go through full transition when he feels like it. He is also very vocal about the focus on people who don't want the focus on them. He wouldn't use gender neutral toilets if they became the only one in a building. So the gender politics is not a vote winner by all.
I wasn’t trying to make out you were against trans people using disabled toilets and I don’t know where you got that idea from and further you didn’t mention your friend’s son being trans. But to be honest your friend’s son shouldn’t be using the disabled toilets unless he has a disability. Does he ? You say he doesn’t want to use all the toilets available to him but is quite happy to use toilets which he is not untitled to use. Pity disabled people don’t have the same choice.
-
I wasn’t trying to make out you were against trans people using disabled toilets and I don’t know where you got that idea from and further you didn’t mention your friend’s son being trans. But to be honest your friend’s son shouldn’t be using the disabled toilets unless he has a disability. Does he ? You say he doesn’t want to use all the toilets available to him but is quite happy to use toilets which he is not untitled to use. Pity disabled people don’t have the same choice.
In your own words
"Everyone and their aunties use disabled toilets. Why should transgender men or women be any different ?"
why indeed should they be different. It is not against the law to use any toilet if the need rises!
-
Why are you trying to make out I am against trans people using disabled toilets? Please try and read my posts.
The point I was making is my friends son who is Tans uses the disabled toilets when he is out side.
He doesn't want to use male /female/gender neutral toilets. He is happy to discuss why he was born a female but prefers to be addressed as male, and will go through full transition when he feels like it. He is also very vocal about the focus on people who don't want the focus on them. He wouldn't use gender neutral toilets if they became the only one in a building. So the gender politics is not a vote winner by all.
Disabled toilets are gender neutral and he uses them, so...
-
In your own words
"Everyone and their aunties use disabled toilets. Why should transgender men or women be any different ?"
why indeed should they be different. It is not against the law to use any toilet if the need rises!
Clumsy wording. I’m against anyone who isn’t disabled using disabled toilets.
-
Disabled toilets are gender neutral and he uses them, so...
So what- so nothing wrong with it in my opinion.
-
Clumsy wording. I’m against anyone who isn’t disabled using disabled toilets.
Ok no problem Faith. I disagree the toilet is there for public use and is designed with disabled persons access. If the toilet is empty and I need to go- I go.
-
So what- so nothing wrong with it in my opinion.
So why would he refuse to use a gender neutral toilet?
-
Ok no problem Faith. I disagree the toilet is there for public use and is designed with disabled persons access. If the toilet is empty and I need to go- I go.
And if you need to park and there’s nowhere else but the disabled space do you use that too?
-
Ok no problem Faith. I disagree the toilet is there for public use and is designed with disabled persons access. If the toilet is empty and I need to go- I go.
No the toilet is for the sole use of disabled people....that’s why some have a special key. You can use any public toilet...disabled people, unfortunately don’t have that luxury.
-
No the toilet is for the sole use of disabled people....that’s why some have a special key. You can use any public toilet...disabled people, unfortunately don’t have that luxury.
We are both right and wrong! depending on where you are. If you have ladies and gents facilities and a separate one with a key for disabled then no problem. But sometimes there are toilets which have disabled access-which can be used by the public.
"So why would he refuse to use a gender neutral toilet? "
I am not getting into a discussion about the mind set of a trans person- He feels uncomfortable is what he says.
At a university I have been told the gender neutral toilet has cubical AND urinal! Ew.
-
We are both right and wrong! depending on where you are. If you have ladies and gents facilities and a separate one with a key for disabled then no problem. But sometimes there are toilets which have disabled access-which can be used by the public.
"So why would he refuse to use a gender neutral toilet? "
I am not getting into a discussion about the mind set of a trans person- He feels uncomfortable is what he says.
At a university I have been told the gender neutral toilet has cubical AND urinal! Ew.
No MTI with the greatest respect its you thats wrong. If the toilets door has a disabled sign on it then it’s for disabled people only.
-
No MTI with the greatest respect its you thats wrong. If the toilets door has a disabled sign on it then it’s for disabled people only.
It is down to good manners and etiquette to be honest. There is no Law Against using access toilets. There are many places which have one or two toilets and both have disabled access for use by ALL clients/visitors. My dentist is one of them!
-
It is down to good manners and etiquette to be honest. There is no Law Against using access toilets. There are many places which have one or two toilets and both have disabled access for use by ALL clients/visitors. My dentist is one of them!
In private property there are often unisex toilets used by both men, woman, transgender and disabled people but that’s not what we are talking about here.
It isn’t against the law for men to use public toilets meant for women. Are you okay with that as well ?
-
In private property there are often unisex toilets used by both men, woman, transgender and disabled people but that’s not what we are talking about here.
It isn’t against the law for men to use public toilets meant for women. Are you okay with that as well ?
I never said it was OK did I? I mentioned etiquette/manners. I would have an issue if men and trans were using female toilets- I would feel unsafe.
-
I never said it was OK did I? I mentioned etiquette/manners. I would have an issue if men and trans were using female toilets- I would feel unsafe.
Like this lady ?
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/30/by-using-the-disabled-toilet-youre-putting-me-at-risk-9327740/
Isn’t it hypocritical for you to feel free to use a toilet designated for disabled people because it isn’t against the law but have an issue with men using woman’s toilets, even though it’s legal too ?
-
Like this lady ?
https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/30/by-using-the-disabled-toilet-youre-putting-me-at-risk-9327740/
Isn’t it hypocritical for you to feel free to use a toilet designated for disabled people because it isn’t against the law but have an issue with men using woman’s toilets, even though it’s legal too ?
Yes all nice and good but she doesn't make the point very well. That there is a difference. The blatant one is if she went into an accessible toilet and a male jumped in beside her that would be uncomfortable? Yes? No?
Since female toilets are usually more than one booth in many places- it could be uncomfortable for her I am sure if a male could share that space. Three booths one woman and four males all waiting to use the toilet in the female designated area?
-
Yes all nice and good but she doesn't make the point very well. That there is a difference. The blatant one is if she went into an accessible toilet and a male jumped in beside her that would be uncomfortable? Yes? No?
Since female toilets are usually more than one booth in many places- it could be uncomfortable for her I am sure if a male could share that space. Three booths one woman and four males all waiting to use the toilet in the female designated area?
I think she makes the point very well. Not sure the point you are trying to make.
You use the disabled toilet because it’s not against the law but does cause distress for disabled people. Men can use female toilets because it’s not against the law but would cause you distress. Both toilet cubicles can be used in privacy.
Can you see the hypocrisy?
-
I think she makes the point very well. Not sure the point you are trying to make.
You use the disabled toilet because it’s not against the law but does cause distress for disabled people. Men can use female toilets because it’s not against the law but would cause you distress. Both toilet cubicles can be used in privacy.
Can you see the hypocrisy?
No, There is no hypocrisy Faith.
I never said I use the toilets because they is no legal requirement for people not to use the toilet.
I made it clear enough. I will use a toilet if I need to go as it is a public convenience and has been adapted for people with disabilities. I am not going to push people in wheelchairs out of the way or skip a queue !
The legal argument is a moot point as I explained. Disabled toilet is one cubical it can be used by male or female.
Not at the same time!
Male and female toilets are different for a very good reason. Safety and comfort. I would not feel comfortable being the only female in a toilet queue with four males also in that queue. For the same reason I wouldn't go into a gents toilet!
-
No, There is no hypocrisy Faith.
I never said I use the toilets because they is no legal requirement for people not to use the toilet.
I made it clear enough. I will use a toilet if I need to go as it is a public convenience and has been adapted for people with disabilities. I am not going to push people in wheelchairs out of the way or skip a queue !
The legal argument is a moot point as I explained. Disabled toilet is one cubical it can be used by male or female.
Not at the same time!
Male and female toilets are different for a very good reason. Safety and comfort. I would not feel comfortable being the only female in a toilet queue with four males also in that queue. For the same reason I wouldn't go into a gents toilet!
You may not push a wheelchair user out of the way to get into the loo but you will force those same people, who are often desperate as disabled toilets are few and far between, to sit outside and wait for you. When you have the choice of multiple toilets to use why would you force those with the choice of only one to wait for you ? Surely you can see how selfish that is ? The Radar Key scheme was developed precisely to stop people like you misusing toilets not meant for them.
Would you park in a disabled parking space ?
-
You may not push a wheelchair user out of the way to get into the loo but you will force those same people, who are often desperate as disabled toilets are few and far between, to sit outside and wait for you. When you have the choice of multiple toilets to use why would you force those with the choice of only one to wait for you ? Surely you can see how selfish that is ? The Radar Key scheme was developed precisely to stop people like you misusing toilets not meant for them.
Would you park in a disabled parking space ?
"but you will force those same people, who are often desperate as disabled toilets are few and far between, to sit outside and wait for you."
Really Faith, is that your best low shot? I have never forced disabled person to wait for access toilet, bit of a slur there. it is different if other disabled people force other disabled people to wait?
" When you have the choice of multiple toilets to use why would you force those with the choice of only one to wait for you "?
Why indeed would I, you tell me, you are in the know here.
I claimed: IF THERE IS ONLY ONE TOILET AND IT IS AN ACCESS TOILET AND I NEED THE LOO I WILL USE IT. read back I make this very clear. I added my dentist only have an access toilet- I use it if I have to.
Surely you can see how selfish that is ?
Yes it is very selfish if there are multiple cubicles and someone uses the disabled cubicle!
"Would you park in a disabled parking space ? "
Yes! when taking my disabled family members shopping. However,even though I am entitled to use their badge, I always help them out and in the shop then I move my car.
I park again to enable them to get back into the car. So I don't hog the space.- even though I can.
So now you will be asking do I eat children and poison cats and dogs? 8**8:/:
-
"but you will force those same people, who are often desperate as disabled toilets are few and far between, to sit outside and wait for you."
Really Faith, is that your best low shot? I have never forced disabled person to wait for access toilet, bit of a slur there. it is different if other disabled people force other disabled people to wait?
" When you have the choice of multiple toilets to use why would you force those with the choice of only one to wait for you "?
Why indeed would I, you tell me, you are in the know here.
I claimed: IF THERE IS ONLY ONE TOILET AND IT IS AN ACCESS TOILET AND I NEED THE LOO I WILL USE IT. read back I make this very clear. I added my dentist only have an access toilet- I use it if I have to.
Surely you can see how selfish that is ?
Yes it is very selfish if there are multiple cubicles and someone uses the disabled cubicle!
"Would you park in a disabled parking space ? "
Yes! when taking my disabled family members shopping. However,even though I am entitled to use their badge, I always help them out and in the shop then I move my car.
I park again to enable them to get back into the car. So I don't hog the space.- even though I can.
So now you will be asking do I eat children and poison cats and dogs? 8**8:/:
Sorry but if you’re in the toilet with the door closed how can you tell who is waiting outside ?
If there is only one toilet it is meant for the use of everyone. If there are disabled and non disabled toilets then the disabled toilets are for disabled people, not you. How clearer does that have to be ?
Okay so as I understand it you wouldn’t use a disabled space if you didn’t have a disabled member of your family with you. Why not ? What’s the difference between a disabled parking space and a disabled toilet ? It’s not against the law for non disabled people to use either.
-
Sorry but if you’re in the toilet with the door closed how can you tell who is waiting outside ?
If there is only one toilet it is meant for the use of everyone. If there are disabled and non disabled toilets then the disabled toilets are for disabled people, not you. How clearer does that have to be ?
Okay so as I understand it you wouldn’t use a disabled space if you didn’t have a disabled member of your family with you. Why not ? What’s the difference between a disabled parking space and a disabled toilet ? It’s not against the law for non disabled people to use either.
Are you changing the script here?
"Sorry but if you’re in the toilet with the door closed how can you tell who is waiting outside ? "
Disabled people don't queue? ok.
confusedmuch.com? lol
"If there is only one toilet it is meant for the use of everyone."
Yes, and I can't see disabled people waiting because the door is closed. This makes me a bad person right? no?
"If there are disabled and non disabled toilets then the disabled toilets are for disabled people, not you."
You absolutely insist on not reading what I write.
I claimed: IF THERE IS ONLY ONE TOILET AND IT IS AN ACCESS TOILET AND I NEED THE LOO I WILL USE IT. read back I make this very clear. I added my dentist only have an access toilet- I use it if I have to.
How clearer does that have to be ?
Yes Faith how clear do I have to make it indeed!
you are pointing a finger at me personally- trying to make me out to be selfish etc. That IMO is bad form indeed.
If I anyone wants to park in disabled space they can be fined in many car parks and council owned parks. IF People want to use a disabled access toilet that is up to them.
-
Are you changing the script here?
"Sorry but if you’re in the toilet with the door closed how can you tell who is waiting outside ? "
Disabled people don't queue? ok.
confusedmuch.com? lol
"If there is only one toilet it is meant for the use of everyone."
Yes, and I can't see disabled people waiting because the door is closed. This makes me a bad person right? no?
"If there are disabled and non disabled toilets then the disabled toilets are for disabled people, not you."
You absolutely insist on not reading what I write.
I claimed: IF THERE IS ONLY ONE TOILET AND IT IS AN ACCESS TOILET AND I NEED THE LOO I WILL USE IT. read back I make this very clear. I added my dentist only have an access toilet- I use it if I have to.
How clearer does that have to be ?
Yes Faith how clear do I have to make it indeed!
you are pointing a finger at me personally- trying to make me out to be selfish etc. That IMO is bad form indeed.
If I anyone wants to park in disabled space they can be fined in many car parks and council owned parks. IF People want to use a disabled access toilet that is up to them.
Disabled people don’t queue ? If a selfish non disabled individual is using the toilet then the disabled person will have to wait until it is vacant. I don’t believe I used the word queue.
‘Yes, and I can't see disabled people waiting because the door is closed. This makes me a bad person right? no?’
Absolutely no idea what this means.
You really are trying to change the goalposts. You said that if you had to use a disabled toilet you would...now it’s if you had to use a toilet that everyone is entitled to use anyway, like in your dentists, then you would. Bit of a discrepancy there.
-
Disabled people don’t queue ? If a selfish non disabled individual is using the toilet then the disabled person will have to wait until it is vacant. I don’t believe I used the word queue.
‘Yes, and I can't see disabled people waiting because the door is closed. This makes me a bad person right? no?’
Absolutely no idea what this means.
You really are trying to change the goalposts. You said that if you had to use a disabled toilet you would...now it’s if you had to use a toilet that everyone is entitled to use anyway, like in your dentists, then you would. Bit of a discrepancy there.
I just don't get your argument here Faith. I really don't.
one disabled toilet 3 disabled bodies people need to use it, that is not a queue? The person in side does not know there is a queue as the door is closed. Therefore disabled people have to wait! Does it matter if an abled bodied person is using it or a disabled person is using it they still have to wait!
Firstly there are no disabled toilets. they are access enabled and in some places they only have one or three of these. I will use one if needs be. if someone is waiting I will let them go first obviously. If there are ladies and Gents and a disabled toilet I use the ladies. so I don't know what your trying to achieve. If you want to call me selfish and intolerant then I am OK with that. I and many would disagree.
It would be really good if you would stop putting your scenarios onto me personally. I think that that is poor debating skill. IMO
-
I just don't get your argument here Faith. I really don't.
one disabled toilet 3 disabled bodies people need to use it, that is not a queue? The person in side does not know there is a queue as the door is closed. Therefore disabled people have to wait! Does it matter if an abled bodied person is using it or a disabled person is using it they still have to wait!
Firstly there are no disabled toilets. they are access enabled and in some places they only have one or three of these. I will use one if needs be. if someone is waiting I will let them go first obviously. If there are ladies and Gents and a disabled toilet I use the ladies. so I don't know what your trying to achieve. If you want to call me selfish and intolerant then I am OK with that. I and many would disagree.
It would be really good if you would stop putting your scenarios onto me personally. I think that that is poor debating skill. IMO
Now you are not only changing the goalposts but relocating to another pitch entirely. I suggest you read your posts again to remind yourself of what you actually did say because you seem somewhat confused.
I posted a link that set out very eloquently why the use of disabled toilets by able bodied people limits the independence of disabled people. You chose to dismiss that opinion because it didn’t agree with yours, which is becoming something of a habit with you. Most able bodied people appreciate the difficulties disabled people have in accessing facilities that they take for granted and act accordingly....unfortunately you are not one of them.
-
Now you are not only changing the goalposts but relocating to another pitch entirely. I suggest you read your posts again to remind yourself of what you actually did say because you seem somewhat confused.
I posted a link that set out very eloquently why the use of disabled toilets by able bodied people limits the independence of disabled people. You chose to dismiss that opinion because it didn’t agree with yours, which is becoming something of a habit with you. Most able bodied people appreciate the difficulties disabled people have in accessing facilities that they take for granted and act accordingly....unfortunately you are not one of them.
What is it ab out this post you do not understand Faith?
I claimed: IF THERE IS ONLY ONE TOILET AND IT IS AN ACCESS TOILET AND I NEED THE LOO I WILL USE IT. read back I make this very clear. I added my dentist only have an access toilet- I use it if I have to.
" Most able bodied people appreciate the difficulties disabled people have in accessing facilities that they take for granted and act accordingly.."
Yes and I said
"some places they only have one or three of these. I will use one if needs be- If there are ladies and Gents and a disabled toilet I use the ladies "
and then you come back with I am not one of them?
You made a claim about disabled people waiting. that is a moot point as I explained . some times there is a queue for the disabled toilet by disabled people. I should Know 3 Members of my extended family have severe disabilities.
You really do not like people having a different opinion to you. you are using this thread to try and show me up like all good socialist do. Create criminals over nothing.
-
What is it ab out this post you do not understand Faith?
I claimed: IF THERE IS ONLY ONE TOILET AND IT IS AN ACCESS TOILET AND I NEED THE LOO I WILL USE IT. read back I make this very clear. I added my dentist only have an access toilet- I use it if I have to.
" Most able bodied people appreciate the difficulties disabled people have in accessing facilities that they take for granted and act accordingly.."
Yes and I said
"some places they only have one or three of these. I will use one if needs be- If there are ladies and Gents and a disabled toilet I use the ladies "
and then you come back with I am not one of them?
You made a claim about disabled people waiting. that is a moot point as I explained . some times there is a queue for the disabled toilet by disabled people. I should Know 3 Members of my extended family have severe disabilities.
You really do not like people having a different opinion to you. you are using this thread to try and show me up like all good socialist do. Create criminals over nothing.
You are showing yourself up I’m afraid.
-
You are showing yourself up I’m afraid.
I am sure others reading the posts can see quite clearly you have tried to pin a selfish name tag on me. Accusing me to using disabled toilets when I have no right to do so, thus denying disabled people access to toilets, says more about you than me TBH.
That is what you tolerant people do. Place people into boxes and try to undermine and humiliate. Only works on some people- some of the time. On this occasion- with this person- you lose.
-
Should trans women be allowed to take part in women’s sports competitons?
-
According to Dawn Butler, a Labour MP, children are born “without sex”. Who knew?!
-
I am sure others reading the posts can see quite clearly you have tried to pin a selfish name tag on me. Accusing me to using disabled toilets when I have no right to do so, thus denying disabled people access to toilets, says more about you than me TBH.
That is what you tolerant people do. Place people into boxes and try to undermine and humiliate. Only works on some people- some of the time. On this occasion- with this person- you lose.
I’m sure others reading your posts will make up their own minds. They need no help from me.
-
According to Dawn Butler, a Labour MP, children are born “without sex”. Who knew?!
and maybe her children were born without sex. Mine most definitely male and female.
" I’m sure others reading your posts will make up their own minds. They need no help from me."
Now, now don't be so coy. take credit where it is due. you tried your best to give them a nod- with your posts. 8(0(*
-
Proof that the Woke World we live in really has gone mad
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/07/13/jos-cervical-cancer-charity-trans-non-binary-smear-test-intersex-transphobia-gender-identity/
-
There are only two genders.
When is straight pride month ?
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4pS3MbmVIU1E-CkplMgJVWsD85wqj3NrCGVy9aemGTJcvj2A&s)
-
Proof that the Woke World we live in really has gone mad
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/07/13/jos-cervical-cancer-charity-trans-non-binary-smear-test-intersex-transphobia-gender-identity/
Trans phobic lmao!
Men do NOT have a cervix therefor can't get cervical cancer! end of!
Women who identify as a man does have a cervix because 'HE' is a woman.
There must be a word for those little minorities who hate straight folks apart from calling us transphobic. How about they are hetrophobes... @)(++(*