When Does Lockdown End?

[durhamplumber]

Just in case Durhamplumber's verbose nonsense fills the pages with his non-contributory crap.

Razzler is getting well into this "" trading insults"" caper..

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

How many centuries do you think we should go back?

What would you suggest?

We stuffed the Germans tho...again!..

We were discussing transam's war time relatives, you eejit!

There's one thing that one can rely on with you: your idiotic inconsistency.
At least that is consistent with you.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Cross dressing Bikers on Harleys!...Now THAT would be a laugh!

I wasn't suggesting that motorbiking was into crossdressing, but if you're more familiar with him than I ........
Now THAT would be a laugh!

 

[durhamplumber]

wasn't suggesting that motorbiking was into crossdressing

Neither was I...Lighten up ..FFS

 

[motorbiking]

. duplicate

 

[motorbiking]

Until motorbiking can show me where crossdressing is covered in any Equalities Act, I'll maintain that my comment was and is correct.

Sec 7 of the Equalities Act 2010

I would consider that an apology ought to be forthcoming from you for your aggressive, undignified and unjustified entry into this discussion, not to mention, that you are wrong:

I would apologise if I was wrong, but I'm not. The question put to the lawyer by the reader stated that the person did not consider themselves transgender. This is vitally important. By stating that they were not transgender they put themselves outside the help of: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

Its like me saying - I like to wear ladies panties because they give me better support - but I'm not trans or I like to think about having sex with men, but am not gay or wearing a cross not for religious believes etc.

However, if I choose to wear women clothes because I am a cross dresser who likes to look like a woman then I can fit "undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex." key point being part process and attributes of sex. The reassignment does not need to be complete or permanent. Again, its about how they identify themselves not how you or I categorise them.

Its also covered in the guides to providing services etc .
https://assets.publishing.service.g...ervices_for_transgender_customers-a_guide.pdf

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I would apologise if I was wrong, but I'm not. The question put to the lawyer by the reader stated that the person did not consider themselves transgender. This is vitally important. By stating that they were not transgender they put themselves outside the help of: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

Is that not exactly what I said in the first place.
I said there is a difference between transgender and transvestite.
Transgender are protected. Transvestites aren't.
You disagreed, and claimed that transvestites are a subset of transgender. They could be, but only if they are transitioning. If they're not transitioning, then they are purely transvestites, and not covered by the Equalities legislation.
Therefore you are wrong.
In addition, if someone is transitioning then they would be in a position to inform their employer, etc, which would provide then the protection of the legislation.
If they simply decided to start crossdressing, and were not, and had no intention of, transitioning, they would not be entitled to any protection.

 

[motorbiking]

Is that not exactly what I said in the first place.
I said there is a difference between transgender and transvestite.
Transgender are protected. Transvestites aren't.

This is wrong

You disagreed, and claimed that transvestites are a subset of transgender. They could be,

correct

but only if they are transitioning. If they're not transitioning, then they are purely transvestites, and not covered by the Equalities legislation.

still wrong

In addition, if someone is transitioning then they would be in a position to inform their employer, etc, which would provide then the protection of the legislation.

Its not a requirement, so nope you are also wrong.

If they simply decided to start crossdressing, and were not, and had no intention of, transitioning, they would not be entitled to any protection.

that would depend how they identify.

 

[SirGalahad]

https://www.theguardian.com/inequal...performance-issues-say-nearly-half-of-britons

Nearly half of people believe those who lost their job during the pandemic were likely to have been underperforming, a survey has found.

Lockdown job losses are your own fault.

 

[motorbiking]

But does that also mean most didn't think this?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

This is wrong

Please show me where transvestites are protected under Equalities legislation.
In my opinion, transvestites that are transitioning, or have transitioned are not, by definition transvestites. The word means to crossdress. Therefore if someone is wearing the clothes of the opposite sex, it could only mean that they are transitioning, but still wearing the clothes of their previous gender.
As transitioning people, they are protected, and I suppose they have a choice of which gender clothes to wear.

correct

It can only be correct if the transitioning person is wearing the clothes of the opposite sex to which they identify. But as a transgender they would be protected, and it would be extremely difficult to ascertain that they were crossdressing.

still wrong

If the definition of transvestite is to crossdress for sexual pleasure, please explain how they would be covered by Equalities legislation. Equalities legislation does not cover sexual pleasure.

Its not a requirement, so nope you are also wrong.

I didn't say it was a requirement. Stop twisting what I wrote.
I said that they would be in a position to inform their employer.
It isn't a requirement, until the employer discriminates on the grounds of crossdressing, then it would become a requirement in the employee's defence to inform whoever needs to know that they are transitioning, in order to benefit from the legal protection.

that would depend how they identify.

If they dressed in clothes opposite to which they identify, they would be crossdressing. And they would not be covered by Equalities legislation.

To sum up.
Transvestites crossdress for sexual pleasure, or for entertainment. They are not covered by Equalities legislation. Until you can produce evidence to the contrary, which hasn't been produced yet, that remains my final opinion.

Transgenders, or those in the process of transitioning are protected under the legislation. In theory, if they then crossdress, i.e. wear clothes of the opposite sex to which they identify, for sexual pleasure or entertainment, they could be unprotected by the legislation. But, in practice, it would be difficult to argue that those transitioning, or those transitioned are crossdressing, or are transvestites.
But as they are protected, how can they be discriminated against for their dress.

This is the same position that I started from, and nothing so far has been produced to suggest I am wrong.
To the contrary, I have produced another legal opinion that crossdressing is not covered by the legislation, and does not protect transvestites.

 

[motorbiking]

I think you are clinging to the rather dated view that transvestitism is for sexual pleasure. I'm aware that there are plenty of texts that say this.. but there are also plenty who say its about comfort and alignment with the other sex. The legislation clearly avoids getting in to any definitions of an acceptable "why" and (section 7 again re your other question), simply says if you are x and you dress as y for the purpose of reassignment then you are trans. You do not have to be transsexual or intending to be, to qualify. If you do it for ****s n giggles and state openly that you are not trans (as per your example) then clearly you are self declaring that you do not qualify for section 7 inclusion.

 

[durhamplumber]

Is that not exactly what I said in the first place.
I said there is a difference between transgender and transvestite.
Transgender are protected. Transvestites aren't.
You disagreed, and claimed that transvestites are a subset of transgender. They could be, but only if they are transitioning. If they're not transitioning, then they are purely transvestites, and not covered by the Equalities legislation.
Therefore you are wrong.
In addition, if someone is transitioning then they would be in a position to inform their employer, etc, which would provide then the protection of the legislation.
If they simply decided to start crossdressing, and were not, and had no intention of, transitioning, they would not be entitled to any protection.

You make it sound like a person needs surgery to legally change gender.Wrong.Please clarify your position as you have waffled that much and still not managed to make your point clearly.Be concise.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

You make it sound like a person needs surgery to legally change gender.Wrong.Please clarify your position as you have waffled that much and still not managed to make your point clearly.Be concise.

You're making ludicrous assumptions about what you think I'm thinking.
I'm not interested in clarifying my position to you because you've proven time and time again, that you simply won't understand irrespective of how much clarifying I try.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I think you are clinging to the rather dated view that transvestitism is for sexual pleasure. I'm aware that there are plenty of texts that say this.. but there are also plenty who say its about comfort and alignment with the other sex. The legislation clearly avoids getting in to any definitions of an acceptable "why" and (section 7 again re your other question), simply says if you are x and you dress as y for the purpose of reassignment then you are trans. You do not have to be transsexual or intending to be, to qualify. If you do it for ****s n giggles and state openly that you are not trans (as per your example) then clearly you are self declaring that you do not qualify for section 7 inclusion.

You can't assume that all crossdressers are transgender.
If someone is being discriminated against, they have the option of declaring themselves as transgender, or transitioning, in order to qualify for protection under the legislation.
If they do not, they are classed as crossdressers, transvestites, and the are not protected by the legislation.
It doesn't matter how many times you try to dress it up as transvestites are transgender, transvestites are not automatically transgender.
You don't need to openly state that you are not transgender. An omission to state that you are transgender means you are not.

Therefore my original assertion was correct, transgender are protected. Transvestites are not.
Instead of waffling on, trying to twist it this way and that, just admit that you are wrong. Transgender are protected. Transvestites are not. There is a difference.

Incidentally, In the Equalities Act 2010, there's parts, there's chapters, and there's schedules.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
Which bit precisely are you referring to?