Hate Crime

  • Thread starter Deleted member 221031
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
When I correct you, I provide a link to the relevant legal reference.
When you try to correct me, you give me your opinion, which has been proven to be wrong many times.

Several times you have presented data which is so obviously twisted in its prsentation that it beggars belief you fell for it.
I'm referring to the risk of breast cancer for transwomen compared to cisgender men.
What do you think might happen when men assigned as males at birth take hormones to encourage the appearance of female characterisitics.

There is a similar reduction of risk for those assigned as female at birth taking hormones to encourage the characterisitics of males.

And you presented it as proof that hormones used in therapy raises the risk of cancer.
Yes, it does when compared with a totally different control group.:rolleyes:
explain what sec 7 of the equalities act is all about?

Does it allow a person to change sex and force others to treat them as that sex?
Does it prevent a person offering intimate female specific beauty treatment from refusing trans-women?

Tell me why this article is ******

A man who becomes trans - does not become a woman. They simply identify as women and are protected as trans people - fact
Trans people suffer bad health - fact
trans medication causes problems - fact
trans people are disproportionately likely to have mental illness - fact
Vulnerable people need protection from trans activists
people who speak out against trans activists are not transphobic.

I know a lesbian who is a nasty man hating woman. I dislike her. that does not make me homophobic. I know another lesbian who is delightful, she is my friend. that doesn't make me an LGBTQ+ activist.
 
Roy has a weird way of describing the fact that women are female, and men are male, and that sex is real, not an opinion or a whim like "gender."
It's the result of trying to argue something that isn't possible to explain logically. You end up tied in knots. Most people getting into one-way arguments like that realise it as soon as they work out that they can't find an explanation. Roy is different.
 
It's the result of trying to argue something that isn't possible to explain logically. You end up tied in knots. Most people getting into one-way arguments like that realise it as soon as they work out that they can't find an explanation. Roy is different.
I think Roy has lost the point he was trying to make, if he was making one at all.

I’m surprised the tantrums haven’t started yet….
 
Sponsored Links
explain what sec 7 of the equalities act is all about?

Does it allow a person to change sex and force others to treat them as that sex?
Does it prevent a person offering intimate female specific beauty treatment from refusing trans-women?

Tell me why this article is ******

A man who becomes trans - does not become a woman. They simply identify as women and are protected as trans people - fact
Trans people suffer bad health - fact
trans medication causes problems - fact
trans people are disproportionately likely to have mental illness - fact
Vulnerable people need protection from trans activists
people who speak out against trans activists are not transphobic.

I know a lesbian who is a nasty man hating woman. I dislike her. that does not make me homophobic. I know another lesbian who is delightful, she is my friend. that doesn't make me an LGBTQ+ activist.
It's already out of date.
As someone who is supposed to have some legal trainig, ypu should have known this.
Maybe you did, but you forgot to mention it.
The Tribunal held that the word ‘process’ should be understood to be a ‘personal process’ entailing a ‘spectrum moving away from birth sex’ and that to be protected ‘a person could be at any point on that spectrum’. It also held this would encompass persons who identified as non-binary, gender fluid or transitioning.

Under the Equality Act 2010, a person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment "if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.

Gender Reassignment - classification

The Tribunal had to address the question of at what point persons are "proposing to undergo" the process of gender reassignment. It was emphasised that it is not a requirement for someone to undergo medical treatment in order to be covered by the Act. The Tribunal looked at the intention of Parliament in recasting gender reassignment protection under the Equality Act 2010 and the fact that it omitted the requirement (contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) for a process to be undertaken under ‘medical supervision’. Therefore, in the Tribunal’s view, made ‘it clear, and beyond dispute, that gender reassignment need never be a medical process’.
The Tribunal held that the word ‘process’ should be understood to be a ‘personal process’ entailing a ‘spectrum moving away from birth sex’ and that to be protected ‘a person could be at any point on that spectrum’. It also held this would encompass persons who identified as non-binary, gender fluid or transitioning.
 
A man does not turn into a woman when he says "I am a woman."
She starts the transitioning process, and legally that is sufficent.
The Tribunal held that the word ‘process’ should be understood to be a ‘personal process’ entailing a ‘spectrum moving away from birth sex’ and that to be protected ‘a person could be at any point on that spectrum’. It also held this would encompass persons who identified as non-binary, gender fluid or transitioning.
 
It's the result of trying to argue something that isn't possible to explain logically. You end up tied in knots. Most people getting into one-way arguments like that realise it as soon as they work out that they can't find an explanation. Roy is different.
Science and medicine agree totally with my position on this.
JohnD and other Gender Essentialists disagree with those scientific and medical experts.

They scoff at the Trump apologists, the Climate Change deniers and the Covid Vaccine scare mongeres, but they totally refuse to accept scientific and medical expert opinion on transgenders.
Double standards, ideological belief based on myths, or just prejudice?
 
I scoff at anyone who says a man turns into a woman

And anyone who claims it is "Gender Essentialism" to say that a man is not a woman.

I scoff at the Trump apologists, the Climate Change deniers, the Covid Vaccine scaremongers, and at people who spread this Transactivist propaganda.
 
I scoff at anyone who says a man turns into a woman

And anyone who claims it is "Gender Essentialism" to say that a man is not a woman.
And you insist that sex is immutable, binary and biologically fixed.
But science and medicne hold more uptodate views. Views which you ideologically refuse to consider. That's the problem with Gender Essemtialism, it's not influenced by science or medicine, it's influenced by prejudice. It relies on convincing other gullible people to their backward way of thinking.
Biological Sex
Most people generally believe that a person is biologically male or female based on the sex assigned at birth. A person is labeled in this binary until they are old enough to understand their gender identity. Their gender identity may or may not align with their biological sex characteristics.

Generally, most humans fit into this binary, but not all. Therefore, biological sex is, in fact, non-binary.


The purpose and intention of intelligent debate is a search for truth.
The honest search for truth isn’t about defeating opponents, it’s about people with differing views coming together to dispel impediments to mutual understanding.
I see precious little of it here. Pointless slogans, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks are not a search for truth, they are about defeating your opponent. That's what I expect from conspiracy theroists, Gender Essentialists, ideologically driven closed minds, etc.
 
Last edited:
And you insist that sex is immutable, binary and biologically fixed.

No, I insist that sex is real. It is not a matter of opinion, or personal choice, or whim.

A person who is anatomically and genetically male is called a man.

A person who is anatomically and genetically female is called a woman.

Do you seriously believe that you have the slightest chance of persuading us otherwise?

You do not.

But you live in a world of fantasies and wishes.
 
No, I insist that sex is real. A person who is anatomically and genetically male is called a man.

A person who is anatomically and genetically female is called a woman.
Science keeps showing us that sex also doesn’t fit in a binary, whether it be determined by genitals, chromosomes, hormones, or bones.

all of us, part of a sex spectrum, not a sex binary.
You are fighting against the tide. You're outdated, old-fashioned, fixed in your ideological beliefs, and rely on inbuilt myths to motivate your Gender Essentialism.

You do know, don't you, that Trump wanted a definition of gender as the sex at birth.

You'd probably agree with his suggestions.

The Trump Administration Wants to Define Gender as Biological Sex at Birth​


This illustrates how Gender Essentialism is rooted in far right Trumpian politics.
This takes a position that what the medical community understands about their patients—what people understand about themselves—is irrelevant, because the government disagrees,” said Catherine E. Lhamon, who led the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in the Obama administration and helped write transgender guidance that is being undone.


The Trump Administration Wants to Define a Person's Sex at Birth. It's Just Not That Simple
 
You are fighting against the tide. You're outdated, old-fashioned, fixed in your ideological beliefs, and rely on inbuilt myths to motivate your Gender Essentialism.

I am talking about sex, not "gender," as you will know if you have read any of my posts.

In current usage, "gender" refers to an opinion, a belief, a wish, a fantasy or a whim.

You can have as many of those as you want.

BTW you don't seem to know what "Gender Essentialism" is, but you are just using it as an attempted insult.

Are you still claiming I am a Radical Feminist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top