Supreme Court makes ruling on definition of Woman

[CliffH]

I'll make a point each day to smile and engage with total strangers, strike up a conversation as opportunities arise, might be as simple as someone picking a cauliflower off the shelf in a shop. Yesterday I got talking for about 15 minutes to an elderly couple it was great. It's quite often an exchange of life experiences and knowledge. They were talking about caravan ownership and their travels.

Try that with younger people though and you'll get yourself locked up . Did you actually talk to the cauliflower?

 

[Amity Island]

Perhaps this generation has invented an alternative form of universal communication? Some of my younger clients prefer online work to face-to-face, presumably because they're much more used to communicating everything (including difficult thoughts and feelings) via a screen.

However, perhaps it wasn't so different in the past? I remember writing things down ('Dear John' letters?) for people when I found it too hard to actually say those things face to face.

It's because the "art" of conversation has been lost. Sit in any restaurant, pub, play centre, gym, they are all glued to their phones. Why bother going out?

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

They sought to erase women as a sex group.

I’m not sure I think that is true of the vast majority of trans people. In my experience trans people simply wanted to be accepted for who they really were. And they sought and were granted legal protection.

Unfortunately there are vile and dispicable views expressed by individuals on either side of this issue. And threats of violence made. VAWG must be tackled in the strongest terms, and the perpetrators brought to swift justice. Rights of women must be protected. But that includes rights of trans women too. Trans women are a small, marginalised and heavily oppressed group.

There are women who can never accept trans women as women, and a few of those have been using this judgement in negative ways, which is a tragedy.

Bad stuff is happening in both directions. And the more this judgement is framed in terms of ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’ I fear the more negative experiences and outcomes will emerge from it.

 

[everydayupsanddowns]

For example, how welcoming do you think a trans person would find this Forum?

Yes I worry about that too.

 

[Amity Island]

Yes I worry about that too.

Personally, if I were transgender, I'd prefer if people didn't refer to me or make exceptions for me as transgender. Seeing me as transgender would have the very opposite effect of what I'd want. That is, to not be seen as different. Thus, to say, how welcoming would a transgender person find the forum, to me, is just creating difference and separatedness.

I want to be treated the same as everyone else, with respect, kindness and acceptance, to be a part of, not separate in any way.

The creation of labels, genders, race, religions etc only creates more division, when in reality, we are simply human. We need to stop seeing the differences and focus on seeing the samenesses. A bit of respect goes a long way.

 

[CliffH]

It's because the "art" of conversation has been lost. Sit in any restaurant, pub, play centre, gym, they are all glued to their phones. Why bother going out?

Well I don't go out: I sit at my computer on Easter Monday writing on the Diabetes UK forum .

 

[CliffH]

Yes I worry about that too.

Of course, as a charity Diabetes UK has a legal responsibility to be accessible to everyone, regardless of attributes such as gender.

I imagine that the contributors to this Forum are overwhelmingly white, middle-aged, straight and cis-gendered but hopefully Diabetes UK has other ways to reach out to people who'd find this Forum intimidating or just boring.

One thing I've noticed though: often people will reach out with one-line requests, sometimes with spelling mistakes. Such people always seem to get treated with respect and compassion and receive helpful replies.

However, I wonder if there's a way of separating those "Help me" / "Okay, here are some ideas" threads from the, "Let me tell everyone how much I know about ..." threads that are undoubtedly fascinating to the people writing and replying to them but possibly intimidating to people who just want practical advice? Then there are the, "I've got too much time on my hands so I'll talk about something unrelated to diabetes" discussions (yes, I'm looking at you, Cliff!) that clutter up the Forum. Could there be some way of separating out these various types of threads?

 

[CliffH]

Personally, if I were transgender, I'd prefer if people didn't refer to me or make exceptions for me as transgender. Seeing me as transgender would have the very opposite effect of what I'd want. That is, to not be seen as different. Thus, to say, how welcoming would a transgender person find the forum, to me, is just creating difference and separatedness.

I want to be treated the same as everyone else, with respect, kindness and acceptance, to be a part of, not separate in any way.

The creation of labels, genders, race, religions etc only creates more division, when in reality, we are simply human. We need to stop seeing the differences and focus on seeing the samenesses. A bit of respect goes a long way.

I take it from your reply that you're not transgender, in which case it's hard for you (or me) to know how various transgender people might want to be treated - unless we ask them and respect their answers.

Of course it's very easy for people (such as me) who have multiple privileges to receive "respect, kindness and acceptance, to be a part of, not separate in any way".

However, people who aren't male and/or white and/or from London and/or middle-aged and/or well educated and/or in a job and/or a homeowner and/or straight and/or cisgendered don't have it so easy. It's up to us who do have one or more of those privileges to keep showing "respect, kindness and acceptance" to everyone else - not the other way round.

 

[Inka]

I’m not sure I think that is true of the vast majority of trans people. In my experience trans people simply wanted to be accepted for who they really were. And they sought and were granted legal protection.

Unfortunately there are vile and dispicable views expressed by individuals on either side of this issue. And threats of violence made. VAWG must be tackled in the strongest terms, and the perpetrators brought to swift justice. Rights of women must be protected. But that includes rights of trans women too. Trans women are a small, marginalised and heavily oppressed group.

There are women who can never accept trans women as women, and a few of those have been using this judgement in negative ways, which is a tragedy.

Bad stuff is happening in both directions. And the more this judgement is framed in terms of ‘victory’ and ‘defeat’ I fear the more negative experiences and outcomes will emerge from it.

To clarify, these particular trans activists sought to erase women as a sex group. That’s their explicit aim. They’ve caused immense harm to women but also to the many reasonable trans people who simply want to live their lives in peace. Yes, of course, trans women (and trans men) should be protected. Very few women will disagree with you there. This is why the judgement should be welcomed as it protects both women and trans women who are protected under the PC of Gender Reassignment and that of their Sex from both direct and indirect discrimination.

I’m not sure bad stuff is happening in both directions. I’ve not seen any evidence of women threatening to rape, kill, hang and decapitate trans people, for example. When women tried to meet, they were subject to threats and sometimes violence. Some women were attacked.

 

[CliffH]

To clarify, these particular trans activists sought to erase women as a sex group. That’s their explicit aim. They’ve caused immense harm to women but also to the many reasonable trans people who simply want to live their lives in peace.

I’m not sure bad stuff is happening in both directions. I’ve not seen any evidence of women threatening to rape, kill, hang and decapitate trans people, for example. When women tried to meet, they were subject to threats and sometimes violence. Some women were attacked.

Yes, you've reminded us again, Inka, that people who were born as a woman don't (with rare exceptions) commit physical violence - unless they're under the influence one way or another of an abusive man.

 

[Inka]

That’s true @CliffH Male people are also by far the major perpetrators of sexual assaults and the majority of their victims are female. It would be really nice if more men understood this - how we live our lives and the innate and justified fear of violence and assault, never mind the ever-present sexism.

 

[Amity Island]

I take it from your reply that you're not transgender, in which case it's hard for you (or me) to know how various transgender people might want to be treated - unless we ask them and respect their answers.

As an aside, one of the main contentions in the new Banter Bill which tries to censor what people are saying in pubs is that for example, a bar manager may overhear a private conversation and take it upon themselves to assume that what is being said may offend one of their bar staff. This just adds another layer of censorship and possible offence, which may be nothing of the kind. We can make assumptions about how others may feel or react to what others say, but in reality this may be far from reality. The other part of the argument against the new banter bill is that people can miss the whole conversation and miss the context of how something was said and interpret it in the completely wrong way.

This is just another example of how people in pubs as well as work places will be afraid to talk to each other through fear of arrest etc

Just to clarify, I'm not talking about people who make awful, vile, intentional abusive comments, but I am talking about how we now live in a time where offence can be taken over just about anything anyone says.

Pubs Will Have to Employ ‘Banter Bouncers’ Under Labour’s Plans to ‘Protect’ Workers From Overhearing ‘Offensive’ Conversations – The Daily Sceptic

The Employment Rights Bill contains a nasty surprise: a clause requiring employers to 'protect' workers from overhearing conversations between members of the public that might upset them. Get ready for the Equality Act 2.0.

dailysceptic.org

 

[CliffH]

That’s true @CliffH Male people are also by far the major perpetrators of sexual assaults and the majority of their victims are female. It would be really nice if more men understood this - how we live our lives and the innate and justified fear of violence and assault, never mind the ever-present sexism.

As an aside, one of the main contentions in the new Banter Bill which tries to censor what people are saying in pubs is that for example, a bar manager may overhear a private conversation and take it upon themselves to assume that what is being said may offend one of their bar staff. This just adds another layer of censorship and possible offence, which may be nothing of the kind. We can make assumptions about how others may feel or react to what others say, but in reality this may be far from reality. The other part of the argument against the new banter bill is that people can miss the whole conversation and miss the context of how something was said and interpret it in the completely wrong way.

This is just another example of how people in pubs as well as work places will be afraid to talk to each other through fear of arrest etc

Pubs Will Have to Employ ‘Banter Bouncers’ Under Labour’s Plans to ‘Protect’ Workers From Overhearing ‘Offensive’ Conversations – The Daily Sceptic

The Employment Rights Bill contains a nasty surprise: a clause requiring employers to 'protect' workers from overhearing conversations between members of the public that might upset them. Get ready for the Equality Act 2.0.

dailysceptic.org

Well as far as I'm concerned the sooner all pubs are closed down the better: men drink in there (and smoke outside) and they're noisy places. Also, football hooligans gather there and drink driving takes place afterwards. We're not still in the 1950s: we don't need pubs any more!

Anyway, regardless of that, I'm always suspicious of the word "banter": it only ever seems to be men who indulge in banter - and it always seems to involve saying something hurtful about someone. I think it's just a way of disguising bullying.

 

[Amity Island]

Well as far as I'm concerned the sooner all pubs are closed down the better: men drink in there (and smoke outside) and they're noisy places. Also, football hooligans gather there and drink driving takes place afterwards. We're not still in the 1950s: we don't need pubs any more!

Anyway, regardless of that, I'm always suspicious of the word "banter": it only ever seems to be men who indulge in banter - and it always seems to involve saying something hurtful about someone. I think it's just a way of disguising bullying.

Interesting point @CliffH

I think many pubs have become much better places since they started serving food and allowing children/families in.

I think there is an issue generally with alcohol though. Our entire culture is built around it. That said, many people don't drink or smoke these days.

 

[CliffH]

Interesting point @CliffH

I think many pubs have become much better places since they started serving food and allowing children/families in.

I think there is an issue generally with alcohol though. Our entire culture is built around it. That said, many people don't drink or smoke these days.

I'm sure you're right: I only ever go in pubs nowadays if they serve proper meals - and I guess most football hooligans avoid those types of pubs anyway.

 

[nonethewiser]

I'll make a point each day to smile and engage with total strangers, strike up a conversation as opportunities arise, might be as simple as someone picking a cauliflower off the shelf in a shop. Yesterday I got talking for about 15 minutes to an elderly couple it was great. It's quite often an exchange of life experiences and knowledge. They were talking about caravan ownership and their travels.

One good thing about owning a dog, when your out for walk you tend to get talking to other dog owners about your dogs which then leads to other subjects.

 

[Amity Island]

One good thing about owning a dog, when your out for walk you tend to get talking to other dog owners about your dogs which then leads to other subjects.

They don't call them man's (mankind) best friend for nothing. Ha ha.

 

[Robin]

Well as far as I'm concerned the sooner all pubs are closed down the better: men drink in there (and smoke outside) and they're noisy places. Also, football hooligans gather there and drink driving takes place afterwards. We're not still in the 1950s: we don't need pubs any more!

All pubs are not the same. Men and women drink in our local, it doesn’t do food, but it is the hub of the village, quite often there’s a message on our village forum 'if anyone would be interested in forming a group to do x,y,z, come to a meeting in the X at 8pm, and we can gauge interest, and people walk home afterwards. Son often takes his father out for a drink there when he’s back, and reconnects with all sorts of people he hasn’t seen for ages because he lives an hour away. I tend not to go very often, because I don’t like beer very much, the last time I was there was for a funeral wake for someone who was on a committee I used to serve on.

 

[Inka]

I totally agree with your last paragraph. The nastiness and discrimination against women by some of these activists is shocking. And for a lesbian woman to be told she is ‘has’ to date trans women, including those with male genitalia is shocking !

Thank you @louisew Lesbians shouldn’t be forced to date trans women nor shamed if they don’t want to. That’s homophobia. In addition, things like the Cotton Ceiling workshops were unbelievably unpleasant to hear about. I found the whole thing upsetting, and quite frightening because there was an element of compulsion and an ignoring of lesbians’ boundaries and right to consent or not. Just the idea of those workshops is vile IMO. To me, it’s similar to the whole Tate vibe.

 

[CliffH]

Thank you @louisew Lesbians shouldn’t be forced to date trans women nor shamed if they don’t want to. That’s homophobia. In addition, things like the Cotton Ceiling workshops were unbelievably unpleasant to hear about. I found the whole thing upsetting, and quite frightening because there was an element of compulsion and an ignoring of lesbians’ boundaries and right to consent or not. Just the idea of those workshops is vile IMO. To me, it’s similar to the whole Tate vibe.

I'm ashamed to say that I'd never heard of 'the cotton ceiling' until you mentioned it. I don't intend to upset anyone by describing it here but I'm not surprised that you find it upsetting and frightening.

Thank you @louisew Lesbians shouldn’t be forced to date trans women nor shamed if they don’t want to. That’s homophobia. In addition, things like the Cotton Ceiling workshops were unbelievably unpleasant to hear about. I found the whole thing upsetting, and quite frightening because there was an element of compulsion and an ignoring of lesbians’ boundaries and right to consent or not. Just the idea of those workshops is vile IMO. To me, it’s similar to the whole Tate vibe.