Sebastian Coe

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:12 pm

Clovius Boofus wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:59 pm
Meanwhile, the excellent points raised by Jellybean (a woman) are totally ignored by the DA troll.
I haven't commented or disagreed with any of the comments around whether trans women should be allowed in womens sports and I dont think a single person on this thread has argued for the inclusion of trans women in womens sports.

Some of your comments on the subject however have been disgusting

What I have specifically commented on though is your complete lack of knowledge on the GRR bill if you think it has anything to do with this subject.

You have brought up the GRR bill a couple of times so do you actual have an idea what it provisions and if you do why do you think it is relevant to this discussion?

Clovius Boofus
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:47 am
Been Liked: 552 times
Has Liked: 161 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Clovius Boofus » Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:28 pm

Devils_Advocate wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:12 pm
Some of your comments on the subject however have been disgusting
Disgusting? Really? Absolute lies, and you damn well know it!

You are the worst troll on here because there's no subject that is safe from your lies and trolling. Furthermore, you don't really give a toss about trans rights. You are only using this as another vehicle for your persistent attention seeking. Pathetic.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:35 pm

Clovius Boofus wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:28 pm
Disgusting? Really? Absolute lies, and you damn well know it!

You are the worst troll on here because there's no subject that is safe from your lies and trolling. Furthermore, you don't really give a toss about trans rights. You are only using this as another vehicle for your persistent attention seeking. Pathetic.
You've been rightly called out by a few people on here for you comments so come back to me when you can explain why the GRR bill has any relevance to a discussion on trans women and women's sports

Clovius Boofus
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:47 am
Been Liked: 552 times
Has Liked: 161 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Clovius Boofus » Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:43 pm

I have not made disgusting comments. I've made comments that you say you don't agree with. Don't lie, troll.

AlargeClaret
Posts: 4428
Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:55 pm
Been Liked: 1148 times
Has Liked: 180 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by AlargeClaret » Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:46 pm

You have to wonder if certain posters wish they didn’t actually have a pen1s.

Devils_Advocate
Posts: 12345
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
Been Liked: 5202 times
Has Liked: 920 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Devils_Advocate » Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:49 pm

Clovius Boofus wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:43 pm
I have not made disgusting comments. I've made comments that you say you don't agree with. Don't lie, troll.
I said come back to me when you can explain why the GRR bill has any relevance to a discussion on trans women and women's sports

GodIsADeeJay81
Posts: 14562
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 9:55 am
Been Liked: 3435 times
Has Liked: 6339 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by GodIsADeeJay81 » Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:52 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:46 pm
You have to wonder if certain posters wish they didn’t actually have a pen1s.
Eh?

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jakubclaret » Sat Jan 28, 2023 4:05 pm

AlargeClaret wrote:
Sat Jan 28, 2023 2:46 pm
You have to wonder if certain posters wish they didn’t actually have a pen1s.
I think some are just dicking about you have to laugh otherwise you might as well just pack it in :lol:

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:22 pm

Greenmile wrote:
Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:03 am
It’s pretty disingenuous to start a thread talking about trans people in sport (which is a genuinely “difficult”, albeit relatively trivial, subject on which there is a reasonable debate to be had) as a Trojan Horse to force through your bigoted transphobic talking points and misinformation about the GRR in Scotland.
I ignored this gem, but it is such a good example of what women have to put up with, that it does deserve an airing:

1. Fairness in women's sport is "relatively trivial". No comment necessary.
2. Lots of women are called bigots with the same amount of evidence that Greenmile has on me - zero. This is why so many women are afraid to speak.
3. Others brought up the GRR bill and I said very little about it beyond pointing out that many WOMEN have concerns about how it impacts WOMEN.

In the words of JK Rowling: "Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn't fear, what women should and shouldn't say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes "real" misogyny: get a mirror. That's real misogyny, looking right back at you."

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Greenmile » Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:40 pm

android wrote:
Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:22 pm
I ignored this gem, but it is such a good example of what women have to put up with, that it does deserve an airing:

1. Fairness in women's sport is "relatively trivial". No comment necessary.
2. Lots of women are called bigots with the same amount of evidence that Greenmile has on me - zero. This is why so many women are afraid to speak.
3. Others brought up the GRR bill and I said very little about it beyond pointing out that many WOMEN have concerns about how it impacts WOMEN.

In the words of JK Rowling: "Men defining what a woman is, what women should and shouldn't fear, what women should and shouldn't say, what rights women should be fine with giving up and, of course, what constitutes "real" misogyny: get a mirror. That's real misogyny, looking right back at you."
1 - do you understand what the word “relatively” means?

2 - plenty of evidence you’re a bigot. Not least your support for the transphobic, homophobic, AstroTurf, fake “charity’ that is the LGB Alliance.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance

3 - the GRR bill has nothing to do with women in sport, but you insist in shoehorning it into this thread, which you started with the sole intention of shoehorning your bigoted transphobic views onto everyone again.

As for the JKR quote, are you a man? (I’m sure you’d have told us by now if you weren’t). If so, her quote applies equally to you as it does to me. The difference being, I don’t set much store by the words of a TERF who pals around with far-right rapists (amongst others) on Twitter, whereas you presumably do.

Clovius Boofus
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:47 am
Been Liked: 552 times
Has Liked: 161 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Clovius Boofus » Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:52 pm

The crap that JKR has to put up with is quite frankly disgusting. One good thing is that she won't be silenced, despite the slurs and threats. Also, being self-made means that the misogynistic haters can't jeopardise her livelihood.
These 3 users liked this post: Sproggy Jellybean android

Jellybean
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 799 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jellybean » Sun Jan 29, 2023 9:04 pm

My fear with the GRR is that it legitimises the notion that men seemingly just have to dress up like a stereotypical woman for a couple of months before they are magically treated as a woman, still with penis/weapon, and can legitimately use women's areas and traditional safe spaces. This in my opinion makes it a bit easier and a bit quicker for a predator to access female spaces, protected under law. No questions asked because they are legally classed as female gender, which changes the boundaries immensely.

I never really appreciated this until I was recently in a department store whereby the female changing rooms were closed for refurb so both sexes were using the same ones. There were just two men and myself in the changing rooms, no staff, I only had a curtain to separate me, and I cannot express the innate fear I had that they were going to look under it, and that as I was completely alone I was very vulnerable! I actually changed my mind and left. This to me magnifies the issue that males using female spaces can present a threat,a small threat but still a threat and if I had a teenage daughter I would be extremely uncomfortable with her sharing this kind of space alone with a male with penis. Generally speaking, men are stronger than women, so the prospect of being attacked in a changing room became very really to me, I hadn't really before thought of my vulnerability in this context (obviously walking alone anywhere I have an innate fear of being attacked, I always hold my car key ready in my pocket as a defence mechanism ready to strike someone!)

This is probably too much detail but I think it's so important, the more you chip away and try to improve trans rights (note as well it always seems for the male to female transitioners) the more it seems to come at a cost to us women. This is the issue people have with GRR. I don't really know what the solution is but please don't ever sacrifice us women in the name of equality.
This user liked this post: Clovius Boofus

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:24 pm

Never been asked to show a form of ID, or indeed my genitals, before entering changing rooms to try on clothes, and that's because we already operate a system of self-ID in public spaces. Has anyone ever been asked to provide documentation proving your sex or gender before going for a pi$$ at the turf? Nope, thought not, because we already operate a system of self-ID. GRR changes nothing in respect of the self-ID policies already in place in public spaces. GRR streamlines administrative processes and lowers the hurdles trans people have to jump over to gain legal recognition of their gender. Removing barriers to legal recognition of gender does not empower the hypothetical predators in these envisioned scenarios, since documentary proof of gender or sex is not required for a person to access a changing room or public toilet.

I've absolutely no doubt that the fears that have been expressed come from a place of genuine concern, truly, but the problem with drawing on hypothetical boogeymen, it must be stated, is the presumption baked into the argument that trans women are nought but cis-male predators in disguise. This is such a gross mischaracterisation, tantamount to equating gay people to paedophiles and using that as an argument for denying them rights. I have news for you: if you are worried about predatory men gaining access to women's spaces, your problem is with predatory men, not trans women. The number of trans prisoners is so low that their housing can be assessed on a case-by-case basis that balances the safety of all involved. It would be preposterous to re-house a MtF (male to female) sex offender transitioning after their crime from a men's prison to a women's prison, but it would also be preposterous to house, for example, a MtF white-collar criminal with cis-male rapists in a men's prison, which is why any unitary policy is too blunt an instrument. Oh, what's that I hear you say? White collar criminals wouldn't be housed with rapists? To that I respond: exactly! there are ways of managing prisoners intelligently and justly. A policy of denying all trans people certain rights on the grounds that it might hypothetically privilege a handful of prisoners (who could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis) at the expense of all other prisoners is as ludicrous as denying, say, disabled people such rights that would otherwise be emancipatory on the grounds that it might also privilege disabled prisoners at the expense of able-bodies prisoners in certain imaginatively concocted hypothetical scenarios. It's a superficially appealing line of reasoning if rape and sexual assault is at the front of your mind, and considering the toxicity of the debate I can understand if that is the case for otherwise well-meaning people, but that doesn't change the fact that the arguments are so steeped in boogeymen-esque fiction that they could just as well be appropriated to subjugate cisgender men, cisgender women, gay man, lesbian women, black people, Asian people, Jews, football fans, people over 60, people under 60, literally anyone if your imagination is vivid enough.

We already have self-ID. Lowering the hurdles people need to jump over to get a gender recognition certificate don't impinge on women's rights. There's no zero-sum recalibration of rights happening here. As far as legal rights are concerned, trans uplift does not come at the necessary expense of women's uplift.
This user liked this post: Greenmile

Jellybean
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 799 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jellybean » Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:58 pm

Nope, you're trying to suppress my fears by making out that that I'm labelling all trans people as potential predators. Of course that's not true and I completely get that all people deserve respect and compassion, but by introducing the new legislation it's a way of legitimising a male with a penis in a women's space, he has no need to be medically supported.

At the moment if I was to say I don't feel safe with sharing such a space with a biological male with a penis identifying as female, I would no doubt be at risk of being arrested for transphobia; if the new legislation was introduced then I feel I would definitely be arrested because they become more protected by the law as a marginalised group. So women are supposed to just be quiet and accept that this is how things are? It was heading exactly the same way with World Athletics before they realised the outrage that allowing men to compete with women is unacceptable, by women (and men thank goodness) starting to push back and say no, not acceptable.

As we progress with this there will be more and more instances of this so called self ID that you've said happens now being eroded, and with that women's rights for safe spaces.

I don't know what the solution is as more people identify as trans, but I don't need men to tell me what I should and shouldn't fear: self preservation is at the core of our very being and you will never change that no matter how much you strive for equality of these predominantly males!
These 2 users liked this post: android Clovius Boofus

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:00 pm

Spiral you write well and make some good points but you are exactly what JKR was talking about, coming along to tell the womenfolk not to worry their pretty little heads. You talk of predators being hypothetical because no-one has to show a gender certificate to get in a changing room but up to now there has been a social contract that male people with a penis do not go into communal female changing rooms. This whole dynamic is changing.

"Cis-male rapists" Seriously? What does that add that was not covered by "rapists"?

I am sure you will get lots of likes but sometimes you are too clever by half!

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:17 pm

Jellybean wrote:
Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:58 pm
Nope, you're trying to suppress my fears by making out that that I'm labelling all trans people as potential predators. Of course that's not true and I completely get that all people deserve respect and compassion, but by introducing the new legislation it's a way of legitimising a male with a penis in a women's space, he has no need to be medically supported.

At the moment if I was to say I don't feel safe with sharing such a space with a biological male with a penis identifying as female, I would no doubt be at risk of being arrested for transphobia; if the new legislation was introduced then I feel I would definitely be arrested because they become more protected by the law as a marginalised group. So women are supposed to just be quiet and accept that this is how things are? It was heading exactly the same way with World Athletics before they realised the outrage that allowing men to compete with women is unacceptable, by women (and men thank goodness) starting to push back and say no, not acceptable.

As we progress with this there will be more and more instances of this so called self ID that you've said happens now being eroded, and with that women's rights for safe spaces.

I don't know what the solution is as more people identify as trans, but I don't need men to tell me what I should and shouldn't fear: self preservation is at the core of our very being and you will never change that no matter how much you strive for equality of these predominantly males!
The male rights lobby (mostly not trans themselves and they prefer to call themselves trans rights activists. But trans identifying females are a threat to no-one, so as you say, it is about the males) are powerful and influential but they are a minority and the tide is turning. There are a lot of very determined, courageous, well educated, well informed, sensible women (supported by the silent majority of men who do need to become more vocal) who are simply not going to accept the erosion of their rights. As I said before, it is actually unfair on the innocent trans person and this must be capable of being resolved by discussion, which so far has been refused. At some point, the gender identity ideologists will have to stop throwing the insults and engage in debate.
This user liked this post: Jellybean

Jellybean
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 799 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jellybean » Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:27 pm

Yes and I think now that the notion of parents in particular having teenage girls at risk of being in a female changing room with a male competing in their sport is leading to this push back, as well as the unfair sports competition element.

dsr
Posts: 15138
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:32 pm

Spiral wrote:
Sun Jan 29, 2023 10:24 pm
Never been asked to show a form of ID, or indeed my genitals, before entering changing rooms to try on clothes, and that's because we already operate a system of self-ID in public spaces. Has anyone ever been asked to provide documentation proving your sex or gender before going for a pi$$ at the turf? Nope, thought not, because we already operate a system of self-ID. GRR changes nothing in respect of the self-ID policies already in place in public spaces. GRR streamlines administrative processes and lowers the hurdles trans people have to jump over to gain legal recognition of their gender. Removing barriers to legal recognition of gender does not empower the hypothetical predators in these envisioned scenarios, since documentary proof of gender or sex is not required for a person to access a changing room or public toilet.

I've absolutely no doubt that the fears that have been expressed come from a place of genuine concern, truly, but the problem with drawing on hypothetical boogeymen, it must be stated, is the presumption baked into the argument that trans women are nought but cis-male predators in disguise. This is such a gross mischaracterisation, tantamount to equating gay people to paedophiles and using that as an argument for denying them rights. I have news for you: if you are worried about predatory men gaining access to women's spaces, your problem is with predatory men, not trans women. The number of trans prisoners is so low that their housing can be assessed on a case-by-case basis that balances the safety of all involved. It would be preposterous to re-house a MtF (male to female) sex offender transitioning after their crime from a men's prison to a women's prison, but it would also be preposterous to house, for example, a MtF white-collar criminal with cis-male rapists in a men's prison, which is why any unitary policy is too blunt an instrument. Oh, what's that I hear you say? White collar criminals wouldn't be housed with rapists? To that I respond: exactly! there are ways of managing prisoners intelligently and justly. A policy of denying all trans people certain rights on the grounds that it might hypothetically privilege a handful of prisoners (who could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis) at the expense of all other prisoners is as ludicrous as denying, say, disabled people such rights that would otherwise be emancipatory on the grounds that it might also privilege disabled prisoners at the expense of able-bodies prisoners in certain imaginatively concocted hypothetical scenarios. It's a superficially appealing line of reasoning if rape and sexual assault is at the front of your mind, and considering the toxicity of the debate I can understand if that is the case for otherwise well-meaning people, but that doesn't change the fact that the arguments are so steeped in boogeymen-esque fiction that they could just as well be appropriated to subjugate cisgender men, cisgender women, gay man, lesbian women, black people, Asian people, Jews, football fans, people over 60, people under 60, literally anyone if your imagination is vivid enough.

We already have self-ID. Lowering the hurdles people need to jump over to get a gender recognition certificate don't impinge on women's rights. There's no zero-sum recalibration of rights happening here. As far as legal rights are concerned, trans uplift does not come at the necessary expense of women's uplift.
I'm fairly sure you're missing most of the relevant points here, Spiral. Few if any people are arguing that the Y-chromosome people who cannot face the world as men and wish to transition to being women, are a threat. What people are worried about is that if you say to ALL Y-chromosome people, including men, that simply by saying they are a woman they can enter women's changing rooms and toilets and other women-only places, SOME men who are not trans at all will abuse the position and take advantage of the lack of protection of women's safe spaces. You are arguing that trans females can be trusted, but can you hand-on-heart argue that all males can be trusted as well?

dsr
Posts: 15138
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:35 pm

This whole debate should be irrelevant in sport. We need to think back to the reason women's sport was invented in the first place. It wasn't a social construct based on the idea that women and men need to be kept apart according to what sex they feel themselves to be; it was a recognition that people with Y chromosomes have such an innate advantage over people without, that people without Y-chromosomes need a separate category to compete in. To allow people with Y-chromosomes to compete in X-chromosome events would be as fatuous as to allow heavyweight boxers to compete as lightweights because they felt their body type was more light than heavy.

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Sun Jan 29, 2023 11:48 pm

Greenmile wrote:
Sun Jan 29, 2023 8:40 pm
1 - do you understand what the word “relatively” means?

2 - plenty of evidence you’re a bigot. Not least your support for the transphobic, homophobic, AstroTurf, fake “charity’ that is the LGB Alliance.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance

3 - the GRR bill has nothing to do with women in sport, but you insist in shoehorning it into this thread, which you started with the sole intention of shoehorning your bigoted transphobic views onto everyone again.

As for the JKR quote, are you a man? (I’m sure you’d have told us by now if you weren’t). If so, her quote applies equally to you as it does to me. The difference being, I don’t set much store by the words of a TERF who pals around with far-right rapists (amongst others) on Twitter, whereas you presumably do.
Oh Greenmile your latest post is just embarrassing and it is why I did not reply initially. It was useful to flush out what women like JKR and jellybean are up against.

I suppose I should respond,if only to correct a few things:

1. Sure, "relatively" is a fine word. Did you know that Mercedes have been allowed a bigger engine than the other teams in Formula 1 next season? It's a relatively small advantage of about 10% so the other teams are fine with it. Oh wait, no, sorry, it is a male dominated sport so fairness still matters apparently. Bigots!

2. Even by your standards, to say that a group made of LGB people is homophobic is a stroke of genius! At least when you came up with your flat earth style theory that sex is not binary you had the excuse of an article in a scientific journal. Presumably the journal carried a disclaimer that the views of the author were not those of the journal. Even so, you would have thought that not long ago, a once reputable journal would not have been so ideologically captured / terrified of the mob that they would have upheld some minimum editorial standards. How that particular falsehood was supposed to help anyone was left unsaid. This time, using irrational wiki is really asking for trouble. Had a quick glance and I would recommend others to treat anything on there with a pinch of salt. Looks like a conspiracy theorists heaven. The description of the LGB Alliance is off the scale bonkers.

3. Once more, I did not "shoehorn" in the GRR to this thread. I did not bring it up! I only mentioned it in response to a couple of posters, one of whom was making some comments, which I felt needed to be challenged.

Yes, I am a man. That's one reason that I am suggesting we listen to women.
No idea what your last sentence is about and I do not want to know. Please do not tell me, as the rest of your post was silly enough.

After the flat-earther business, I told myself not to waste time on your posts. I will try harder.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Lowbankclaret » Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:15 am

This thread appears to have split into two aspects.

The answer to one is probably what my old company did.

It had 4 types of toilets on-site.
Men
Women.
Gender neutral
Multi faith toilets, a posh hole in the floor.

Seems an acceptable solution.

As for trans people in sport, it’s all a bit one sided.

There are not many born as a woman trying to compete in a man’s sport.

It’s all about born as a man wanting to compete as a woman, erm because they know they can win. They know they have a competitive advantage and want to exploit the narrative

. Should be the same as the disabled games, trans gender people should have their own games.

Simply not fair on people born as a women and still identify as such.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:21 am

Just to clear up the sport issue, here is a very short-lived thread from a few weeks back where I gave some of my views. I'm basically in favour of trans leagues/divisions in sports where that makes sense.

https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboa ... &p=1981409

I'll answer some of the points that have been made to me, and in the interest of cohesion, without quoting them directly I'll express the points made as I understand them, reduced or condensed to the main arguments which I'll answer in a sort of catechistic form. I think this will be better than posting a huge messy and unwieldly wall of quote-posts, and I also don't know when I'll be able to respond again, so I'll make my point as thoroughly as possible in the hope that a back-and-forth is not needed. I apologise and stand to be corrected if in summary I have misrepresented anyone's points. I also apologise for the wall of text, but if you're sincere in any of this, you'll read it all.

First: From a position of male privilege, I'm infantilising and condescending cisgender women by telling them their fears are misplaced.

Second: The "system" might be abused by cis-male predators playing dress-up.

Answer: As I said above those fears are understandable, but only from a position of misunderstanding the reforms and their implications. And again, yes, cis bloke talking at women about how they feel, etc etc etc. Acknowledged. Point of pedantry: that doesn't mean I'm wrong though, because the accuracy of a preposition is not determined by the particulars of the person who utters the preposition, the truth or falseness of a preposition is bound by a logic that exists in spite of a human's individual person, prejudice and subjectivity. My argument to that point would be this: reform to gender recognition practices does not enable predators any more than the current status quo already does. This argument is true whether I'm a man or woman, cis or trans. The most charitable interpretation I could afford anyone making that point would be that reforms might been seen by them to potentially escalate the potential for predatory behaviour, but to this I would ask, precisely how? Please explain exactly how this would work. This is based on a misplaced notion of how predators behave, and again, this argument contains hidden assumptions about trans people that I've already talked about. You're focussed on a scenario where a predator walks into a changing room brandishing a certificate which states they are a woman in order to intimidate with impunity. The overwhelming majority of trans women would just want to get in and out as quick as possible. Believe me, for the most part they are more anxious over dressing room dilemmas than cis people, as are trans men. So do you legislate for the majority of a particular minority group, or against the potentiality of a small abusive minority falsely assuming a position within a minority group?

Okay, so what if we just focus on the "bad" ones? This leaves just those trans women who would intimidate or even commit a crime, and those cis men who abuse the system in order to gain some form of bull$hit alibi. But again I ask, how exactly does liberation of gender recognition laws cause this to happen any more than it currently does? We have already established that there is literally nothing stopping a man from walking into a women's dressing room or toilet, certainly not any relevant paperwork. The notion that a liberalisation of GR laws would notably increase the number of people doing this is pure fantasy because it assumes predators are somehow deterred by current gender recognition laws, which they most certainly are not. To state it would somehow open the door to predators is to misunderstand the bill and the existing self-ID policies used in public spaces. I'd again bring people's attention to the fact that a certificate is not needed to access certain women's spaces. GRR reduces waiting periods and removes certain indignities for trans people gaining legal recognition of their gender — foremost among them, from my vantage point at least, reforming the existing practice whereby a change of gender requires a medical diagnosis, which implies transgenderism (for lack of a better term) as being an illness or disorder, which it categorically is not. The bill has no bearing on self-ID practices already in use in public spaces. The only thing that stops a cis-male predator from entering a women's changing room or toilet and committing a crime is the laws that already prohibit people from doing exactly that. We do not have genital inspectors. Reforming gender recognition laws does not provide greater protection for trans people under equality law than that which already exists, and certainly not at the expense of the rights cis women have. This is being framed as an encroachment on women's rights (via an intrusion on women's spaces), but these reforms provide for no such thing: they address bureaucratic technicalities in the hope of lessening indignities trans people face; they do not strip women of a single solitary right. I can understand how blocking gender recognition reforms might give a superficial sense of security to cis women, but I'll say it again, this sense of security, this idea that stopping the liberalisation of gender recognition laws acts as a bulwark against an escalating encroachment on women's spaces by people with a penis — while I can understand how people get to that point of view on an empathetic level, it is not well founded precisely because the reforms to the law do not expose women to any greater threat than that which already exists, and thus, in blocking the reforms, trans people are hurt while women are made no safer, nor is any potential for escalating danger toward cis women avoided, because that potential for escalation was not carried by the reforms in the first place. The entire argument rests on the notion that a predator is enabled by existing gender recognition laws, and to liberate those laws would be to further expose women, and I suppose the only way I can respond to that is by asking this question: what stops a predator from entering a women's space and committing a crime? Try to answer that. The answer is certainly not a gender recognition certificate. And from this position, please explain to me how liberating gender recognition laws would further imperil women. Predators by their very actions cannot be said to be deterred by laws which exist to bind people to moral and acceptable behaviour.

The only thing left to say is that a cis woman opposed to GRR is intimidated by the possibility of a penis being in their proximity in an intimate space, and while this is completely understandable, it again carries the implication that with trans women it will be used as a weapon. You could propose a "solution" to this along the lines of redefining men's and women's spaces to spaces for those with a penis, and those without, but this would introduce more problems: it would force a masculine presenting trans man to enter a without-penis toilet, and a feminine presenting trans woman to enter a with-penis toilet. This brings practical harm, not imagined harm, to lots of people; to the trans woman who has to effectively 'out' herself as transgender by using a with-penis space, visibly and declaratively exposing her to male predators who either discriminate against or fetishize her, to cis women in the presence of a FtM trans man who might be made to feel uncomfortable in the presence of a masculine presenting trans man, and to the trans man himself who similarly is effectively forced to out himself as trans by using the without-penis space.

Why is legal gender recognition important to trans people? The same reason why anyone who is reading this post wouldn't want an incorrect gender to be etched into your own tombstone.

Lowbankclaret
Posts: 6571
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 4:42 pm
Been Liked: 1233 times
Has Liked: 56 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Lowbankclaret » Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:37 am

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:21 am
Just to clear up the sport issue, here is a very short-lived thread from a few weeks back where I gave some of my views. I'm basically in favour of trans leagues/divisions in sports where that makes sense.

https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboa ... &p=1981409

I'll answer some of the points that have been made to me, and in the interest of cohesion, without quoting them directly I'll express the points made as I understand them, reduced or condensed to the main arguments which I'll answer in a sort of catechistic form. I think this will be better than posting a huge messy and unwieldly wall of quote-posts, and I also don't know when I'll be able to respond again, so I'll make my point as thoroughly as possible in the hope that a back-and-forth is not needed. I apologise and stand to be corrected if in summary I have misrepresented anyone's points. I also apologise for the wall of text, but if you're sincere in any of this, you'll read it all.

First: From a position of male privilege, I'm infantilising and condescending cisgender women by telling them their fears are misplaced.

Second: The "system" might be abused by cis-male predators playing dress-up.

Answer: As I said above those fears are understandable, but only from a position of misunderstanding the reforms and their implications. And again, yes, cis bloke talking at women about how they feel, etc etc etc. Acknowledged. Point of pedantry: that doesn't mean I'm wrong though, because the accuracy of a preposition is not determined by the particulars of the person who utters the preposition, the truth or falseness of a preposition is bound by a logic that exists in spite of a human's individual person, prejudice and subjectivity. My argument to that point would be this: reform to gender recognition practices does not enable predators any more than the current status quo already does. This argument is true whether I'm a man or woman, cis or trans. The most charitable interpretation I could afford anyone making that point would be that reforms might been seen by them to potentially escalate the potential for predatory behaviour, but to this I would ask, precisely how? Please explain exactly how this would work. This is based on a misplaced notion of how predators behave, and again, this argument contains hidden assumptions about trans people that I've already talked about. You're focussed on a scenario where a predator walks into a changing room brandishing a certificate which states they are a woman in order to intimidate with impunity. The overwhelming majority of trans women would just want to get in and out as quick as possible. Believe me, for the most part they are more anxious over dressing room dilemmas than cis people, as are trans men. So do you legislate for the majority of a particular minority group, or against the potentiality of a small abusive minority falsely assuming a position within a minority group?

Okay, so what if we just focus on the "bad" ones? This leaves just those trans women who would intimidate or even commit a crime, and those cis men who abuse the system in order to gain some form of bull$hit alibi. But again I ask, how exactly does liberation of gender recognition laws cause this to happen any more than it currently does? We have already established that there is literally nothing stopping a man from walking into a women's dressing room or toilet, certainly not any relevant paperwork. The notion that a liberalisation of GR laws would notably increase the number of people doing this is pure fantasy because it assumes predators are somehow deterred by current gender recognition laws, which they most certainly are not. To state it would somehow open the door to predators is to misunderstand the bill and the existing self-ID policies used in public spaces. I'd again bring people's attention to the fact that a certificate is not needed to access certain women's spaces. GRR reduces waiting periods and removes certain indignities for trans people gaining legal recognition of their gender — foremost among them, from my vantage point at least, reforming the existing practice whereby a change of gender requires a medical diagnosis, which implies transgenderism (for lack of a better term) as being an illness or disorder, which it categorically is not. The bill has no bearing on self-ID practices already in use in public spaces. The only thing that stops a cis-male predator from entering a women's changing room or toilet and committing a crime is the laws that already prohibit people from doing exactly that. We do not have genital inspectors. Reforming gender recognition laws does not provide greater protection for trans people under equality law than that which already exists, and certainly not at the expense of the rights cis women have. This is being framed as an encroachment on women's rights (via an intrusion on women's spaces), but these reforms provide for no such thing: they address bureaucratic technicalities in the hope of lessening indignities trans people face; they do not strip women of a single solitary right. I can understand how blocking gender recognition reforms might give a superficial sense of security to cis women, but I'll say it again, this sense of security, this idea that stopping the liberalisation of gender recognition laws acts as a bulwark against an escalating encroachment on women's spaces by people with a penis — while I can understand how people get to that point of view on an empathetic level, it is not well founded precisely because the reforms to the law do not expose women to any greater threat than that which already exists, and thus, in blocking the reforms, trans people are hurt while women are made no safer, nor is any potential for escalating danger toward cis women avoided, because that potential for escalation was not carried by the reforms in the first place. The entire argument rests on the notion that a predator is enabled by existing gender recognition laws, and to liberate those laws would be to further expose women, and I suppose the only way I can respond to that is by asking this question: what stops a predator from entering a women's space and committing a crime? Try to answer that. The answer is certainly not a gender recognition certificate. And from this position, please explain to me how liberating gender recognition laws would further imperil women. Predators by their very actions cannot be said to be deterred by laws which exist to bind people to moral and acceptable behaviour.

The only thing left to say is that a cis woman opposed to GRR is intimidated by the possibility of a penis being in their proximity in an intimate space, and while this is completely understandable, it again carries the implication that with trans women it will be used as a weapon. You could propose a "solution" to this along the lines of redefining men's and women's spaces to spaces for those with a penis, and those without, but this would introduce more problems: it would force a masculine presenting trans man to enter a without-penis toilet, and a feminine presenting trans woman to enter a with-penis toilet. This brings practical harm, not imagined harm, to lots of people; to the trans woman who has to effectively 'out' herself as transgender by using a with-penis space, visibly and declaratively exposing her to male predators who either discriminate against or fetishize her, to cis women in the presence of a FtM trans man who might be made to feel uncomfortable in the presence of a masculine presenting trans man, and to the trans man himself who similarly is effectively forced to out himself as trans by using the without-penis space.

Why is legal gender recognition important to trans people? The same reason why anyone who is reading this post wouldn't want an incorrect gender to be etched into your own tombstone.
You are seriously over thinking this.

Your ultimate conclusion would be a safe space for every identified gender.

Any argument saying one gender should accept another in its safe space is to me unacceptable.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:08 am

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:37 am
You are seriously over thinking this.

Your ultimate conclusion would be a safe space for every identified gender.

Any argument saying one gender should accept another in its safe space is to me unacceptable.
You imply there are more than two genders and that therefore I believe there must be safe spaces for every one of those genders; you put those words in my mouth as though they were spoken by me, then use the practical unworkability of this idea to implicitly argue against GR reform, despite me not making this claim about the number of identified genders, and, more to the point, as I've already argued a length, the fact that self-ID practices that already govern single-sex/single-gender spaces would be unaffected by GR reform. There appears to be no possibility of bridging the chasm between views because the assumptions that form the basis of your positions are muddled. For example, your mischaracterisation of my argument that, as you infer, the category 'women' must accept 'men' entering their safe spaces. Trans women are not men, their gender is 'trans women'. GR reform does not allow men to enter women's toilets. So ultimately this becomes a matter of genitals, which is to say, biological sex, not gender. To which I revert back to my main argument: when did you last have your genitals inspected before going to the toilet or a changing room? We already operate a system of self-ID. GR reform does not change this. How does GR reform change the status quo? Please answer me this directly, rather than misrepresenting what I've posted. This is nothing more than a moral panic akin to the removal of section 28 or the legalisation of gay marriage. I'm done arguing with people who don't read posts and mischaracterise what is actually written.

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:08 am

Lowbankclaret wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:37 am
You are seriously over thinking this.

Your ultimate conclusion would be a safe space for every identified gender.

Any argument saying one gender should accept another in its safe space is to me unacceptable.
"Over thinking this" that must surely qualify as the greatest understatement of mankind!

Shaggy
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:30 am
Been Liked: 389 times
Has Liked: 148 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Shaggy » Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:23 am

If we are talking about the GRR bill. The short answer is that it was deliberately designed to interfere with reserved legislation so that the Dreghorn Troll could again hit out with a faux grievance against Westminster/UK. Using Trans people as pawns.

dsr
Posts: 15138
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:14 am

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:21 am
Just to clear up the sport issue, here is a very short-lived thread from a few weeks back where I gave some of my views. I'm basically in favour of trans leagues/divisions in sports where that makes sense.

https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboa ... &p=1981409

I'll answer some of the points that have been made to me, and in the interest of cohesion, without quoting them directly I'll express the points made as I understand them, reduced or condensed to the main arguments which I'll answer in a sort of catechistic form. I think this will be better than posting a huge messy and unwieldly wall of quote-posts, and I also don't know when I'll be able to respond again, so I'll make my point as thoroughly as possible in the hope that a back-and-forth is not needed. I apologise and stand to be corrected if in summary I have misrepresented anyone's points. I also apologise for the wall of text, but if you're sincere in any of this, you'll read it all.

First: From a position of male privilege, I'm infantilising and condescending cisgender women by telling them their fears are misplaced.

Second: The "system" might be abused by cis-male predators playing dress-up.

Answer: As I said above those fears are understandable, but only from a position of misunderstanding the reforms and their implications. And again, yes, cis bloke talking at women about how they feel, etc etc etc. Acknowledged. Point of pedantry: that doesn't mean I'm wrong though, because the accuracy of a preposition is not determined by the particulars of the person who utters the preposition, the truth or falseness of a preposition is bound by a logic that exists in spite of a human's individual person, prejudice and subjectivity. My argument to that point would be this: reform to gender recognition practices does not enable predators any more than the current status quo already does. This argument is true whether I'm a man or woman, cis or trans. The most charitable interpretation I could afford anyone making that point would be that reforms might been seen by them to potentially escalate the potential for predatory behaviour, but to this I would ask, precisely how? Please explain exactly how this would work. This is based on a misplaced notion of how predators behave, and again, this argument contains hidden assumptions about trans people that I've already talked about. You're focussed on a scenario where a predator walks into a changing room brandishing a certificate which states they are a woman in order to intimidate with impunity. The overwhelming majority of trans women would just want to get in and out as quick as possible. Believe me, for the most part they are more anxious over dressing room dilemmas than cis people, as are trans men. So do you legislate for the majority of a particular minority group, or against the potentiality of a small abusive minority falsely assuming a position within a minority group?

Okay, so what if we just focus on the "bad" ones? This leaves just those trans women who would intimidate or even commit a crime, and those cis men who abuse the system in order to gain some form of bull$hit alibi. But again I ask, how exactly does liberation of gender recognition laws cause this to happen any more than it currently does? We have already established that there is literally nothing stopping a man from walking into a women's dressing room or toilet, certainly not any relevant paperwork. The notion that a liberalisation of GR laws would notably increase the number of people doing this is pure fantasy because it assumes predators are somehow deterred by current gender recognition laws, which they most certainly are not. To state it would somehow open the door to predators is to misunderstand the bill and the existing self-ID policies used in public spaces. I'd again bring people's attention to the fact that a certificate is not needed to access certain women's spaces. GRR reduces waiting periods and removes certain indignities for trans people gaining legal recognition of their gender — foremost among them, from my vantage point at least, reforming the existing practice whereby a change of gender requires a medical diagnosis, which implies transgenderism (for lack of a better term) as being an illness or disorder, which it categorically is not. The bill has no bearing on self-ID practices already in use in public spaces. The only thing that stops a cis-male predator from entering a women's changing room or toilet and committing a crime is the laws that already prohibit people from doing exactly that. We do not have genital inspectors. Reforming gender recognition laws does not provide greater protection for trans people under equality law than that which already exists, and certainly not at the expense of the rights cis women have. This is being framed as an encroachment on women's rights (via an intrusion on women's spaces), but these reforms provide for no such thing: they address bureaucratic technicalities in the hope of lessening indignities trans people face; they do not strip women of a single solitary right. I can understand how blocking gender recognition reforms might give a superficial sense of security to cis women, but I'll say it again, this sense of security, this idea that stopping the liberalisation of gender recognition laws acts as a bulwark against an escalating encroachment on women's spaces by people with a penis — while I can understand how people get to that point of view on an empathetic level, it is not well founded precisely because the reforms to the law do not expose women to any greater threat than that which already exists, and thus, in blocking the reforms, trans people are hurt while women are made no safer, nor is any potential for escalating danger toward cis women avoided, because that potential for escalation was not carried by the reforms in the first place. The entire argument rests on the notion that a predator is enabled by existing gender recognition laws, and to liberate those laws would be to further expose women, and I suppose the only way I can respond to that is by asking this question: what stops a predator from entering a women's space and committing a crime? Try to answer that. The answer is certainly not a gender recognition certificate. And from this position, please explain to me how liberating gender recognition laws would further imperil women. Predators by their very actions cannot be said to be deterred by laws which exist to bind people to moral and acceptable behaviour.

The only thing left to say is that a cis woman opposed to GRR is intimidated by the possibility of a penis being in their proximity in an intimate space, and while this is completely understandable, it again carries the implication that with trans women it will be used as a weapon. You could propose a "solution" to this along the lines of redefining men's and women's spaces to spaces for those with a penis, and those without, but this would introduce more problems: it would force a masculine presenting trans man to enter a without-penis toilet, and a feminine presenting trans woman to enter a with-penis toilet. This brings practical harm, not imagined harm, to lots of people; to the trans woman who has to effectively 'out' herself as transgender by using a with-penis space, visibly and declaratively exposing her to male predators who either discriminate against or fetishize her, to cis women in the presence of a FtM trans man who might be made to feel uncomfortable in the presence of a masculine presenting trans man, and to the trans man himself who similarly is effectively forced to out himself as trans by using the without-penis space.

Why is legal gender recognition important to trans people? The same reason why anyone who is reading this post wouldn't want an incorrect gender to be etched into your own tombstone.
There's a lot of thought there, but you still miss the obvious. At present, if a dodgy-looking bloke enters the women's changing facilities, hew can be met by screams and thrown out. Under proposed new rules, he can get in there and strip off and no-one can do a thing about it. It is safer for women if potential or actual molestors are not allowed to undress with them.

Sproggy
Posts: 1447
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:41 pm
Been Liked: 662 times
Has Liked: 141 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Sproggy » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:32 am

jkr.JPG
jkr.JPG (65.57 KiB) Viewed 930 times
These 2 users liked this post: Clovius Boofus 1882Clarets1882

Clovius Boofus
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:47 am
Been Liked: 552 times
Has Liked: 161 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Clovius Boofus » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:34 am

Sproggy wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:32 am
jkr.JPG
There's plenty of that on here. Some of it rather patronising too, along with the slurs. JKR has already been branded as a friend of the far-right on here. This is what women who speak out are up against.
This user liked this post: 1882Clarets1882

1882Clarets1882
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 198 times
Has Liked: 182 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by 1882Clarets1882 » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:58 am

Clovius Boofus wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:34 am
There's plenty of that on here. Some of it rather patronising too, along with the slurs. JKR has already been branded as a friend of the far-right on here. This is what women who speak out are up against.
The slurs are just part and parcel of dealing with people who have a deep seated belief in their own moral superiority. They believe that anyone holding an opinion that differs from their own is fundamentally evil. Slurs come straight out their play book.

The slurs dished out serve 2 purposes. The first is straight forward attempt to silence opinions. The second is straight out of their play book and plays on the natural human impulse to defend one's self from unfounded personal accusations. They're losing the argument. Out comes the slur. Then they just sit back and watch while the person on the receiving end is distracted away from the topic, defending their character. You see it time and time again on hear.
This user liked this post: Clovius Boofus

Clovius Boofus
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:47 am
Been Liked: 552 times
Has Liked: 161 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Clovius Boofus » Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:10 am

1882Clarets1882 wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:58 am
Then they just sit back and watch while the person on the receiving end is distracted away from the topic, defending their character.
Good point. I don't think they care how shameful they appear to onlookers when they have to resort to damn right lies.
This user liked this post: 1882Clarets1882

Jellybean
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 3:18 pm
Been Liked: 155 times
Has Liked: 799 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jellybean » Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:33 am

I just appreciate that there is a post on here that is being well discussed in reasoned ways without it turning into the usual slanging match! But also just the fact people are talking about this subject in a reasonable way without shutting down arguments with accusations of transphobia. Hopefully it means it will no longer be the elephant in the room and that somehow a way forward can be achieved that doesn't compromise how far we have evolved as human beings!

1882Clarets1882
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2022 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 198 times
Has Liked: 182 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by 1882Clarets1882 » Mon Jan 30, 2023 11:09 am

Clovius Boofus wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 10:10 am
Good point. I don't think they care how shameful they appear to onlookers when they have to resort to damn right lies.

Lies and slurs is what they rely on. Oh, and blatant hypocrisy.
Notice how one poster first uses the "nazi" slur for my innocently describing a male prisoner getting female prisoners pregnant as "clown world". Even using a far left fake Wikipedia website to back up his groundless claim.

Then gets on his morally superior high horse and displays mock outrage and falsely claims others are comparing trans people to nazis. Talk about a lack of self awareness.
Screenshot_20230130-111007_Gallery.jpg
Screenshot_20230130-111007_Gallery.jpg (290.41 KiB) Viewed 840 times
Screenshot_20230130-104654_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20230130-104654_Chrome.jpg (187.74 KiB) Viewed 840 times
Screenshot_20230130-103839_Chrome.jpg
Screenshot_20230130-103839_Chrome.jpg (164.63 KiB) Viewed 840 times

CrisyPbacon
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:40 pm
Been Liked: 5 times
Has Liked: 1 time

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by CrisyPbacon » Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:38 pm

Well done ladies. Seems to be a growing amount of people keen to see fair competition in female sport maintained.
Attachments
328245465_696979982039420_2381957397714489321_n-1.jpg
328245465_696979982039420_2381957397714489321_n-1.jpg (257.95 KiB) Viewed 794 times

Middle-agedClaret
Posts: 1039
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:55 pm
Been Liked: 314 times
Has Liked: 1069 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Middle-agedClaret » Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:40 pm

I think some of the posters on here should maybe get a hobby.
You know - perhaps finding a football team to support?
These 2 users liked this post: Bosscat android

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:04 pm

Shaggy wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:23 am
If we are talking about the GRR bill. The short answer is that it was deliberately designed to interfere with reserved legislation so that the Dreghorn Troll could again hit out with a faux grievance against Westminster/UK. Using Trans people as pawns.
Similar such reforms were first proposed by Theresa May in the early days of her premiership, but they were shelved when it became clear they were unpopular with the party membership, and with Brexit taking so much time in Westminster and Whitehall it has never going to happen at that time, then those plans died when she was kicked out, but I suspect a streamlining of the process (similar to the Scottish bill, maybe with the age kept at 18) will happen in this country within a decade or so when everyone cools down a bit and trans people become more visible, as in, like, a major storyline on Eastenders or Coronation Street level of visibility.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:13 pm

dsr wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:14 am
There's a lot of thought there, but you still miss the obvious. At present, if a dodgy-looking bloke enters the women's changing facilities, hew can be met by screams and thrown out. Under proposed new rules, he can get in there and strip off and no-one can do a thing about it. It is safer for women if potential or actual molestors are not allowed to undress with them.
I think that kind of scenario would be terrifying for a cis woman, I'm with you there, but that already can happen, and if they were intimidating women they would be removed for intimidating women, and the owner of the premises where this occurs would have to show that they were proportionate in their actions in removing this person if they were to face a legal challenge for discriminating on the basis of a protected characteristic, but again, this already can happen, and changes to the legal process by which a trans person gains legal recognition of their gender will not change any of this, as I said, because you don't need a certificate to enter a changing room. We already operate self-ID policies, certificates recognising your gender don't change that. GRR simply streamlines a legal process, it doesn't alter the status quo in these scenarios that are being presented.

Greenmile
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:50 pm
Been Liked: 1081 times
Has Liked: 4241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Greenmile » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:16 pm

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:04 pm
Similar such reforms were first proposed by Theresa May in the early days of her premiership, but they were shelved when it became clear they were unpopular with the party membership, and with Brexit taking so much time in Westminster and Whitehall it has never going to happen at that time, then those plans died when she was kicked out, but I suspect a streamlining of the process (similar to the Scottish bill, maybe with the age kept at 18) will happen in this country within a decade or so when everyone cools down a bit and trans people become more visible, as in, like, a major storyline on Eastenders or Coronation Street level of visibility.
Hayley Cropper?

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:18 pm

Greenmile wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:16 pm
Hayley Cropper?
No clue who that is, I don't watch it.

edit — just googled it, fair enough, I had no idea that had already happened.

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:21 pm

Maybe she's the reason people are merely disgusted by trans people rather than actually throwing them out of windows :lol:
This user liked this post: Greenmile

Bosscat
Posts: 25363
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:51 am
Been Liked: 8428 times
Has Liked: 18097 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Bosscat » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:22 pm

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:04 pm
Similar such reforms were first proposed by Theresa May in the early days of her premiership, but they were shelved when it became clear they were unpopular with the party membership, and with Brexit taking so much time in Westminster and Whitehall it has never going to happen at that time, then those plans died when she was kicked out, but I suspect a streamlining of the process (similar to the Scottish bill, maybe with the age kept at 18) will happen in this country within a decade or so when everyone cools down a bit and trans people become more visible, as in, like, a major storyline on Eastenders or Coronation Street level of visibility.
Also in Emmerdale they have a character who has gone frome female to a male character in young Hannah now known as Matty ...

https://emmerdale.fandom.com/wiki/Matty_Barton

Spiral
Posts: 5005
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:37 am
Been Liked: 2518 times
Has Liked: 333 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Spiral » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:25 pm

Thanks Bosscat, I'd no idea. I've no idea how sympathetic these storylines have been but I imagine they might have contributed even a little bit to the softening of views that has happened over the decades.

Bosscat
Posts: 25363
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2018 9:51 am
Been Liked: 8428 times
Has Liked: 18097 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Bosscat » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:37 pm

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:25 pm
Thanks Bosscat, I'd no idea. I've no idea how sympathetic these storylines have been but I imagine they might have contributed even a little bit to the softening of views that has happened over the decades.
Very much so ... 🙂

Shaggy
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:30 am
Been Liked: 389 times
Has Liked: 148 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Shaggy » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:38 pm

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:04 pm
Similar such reforms were first proposed by Theresa May in the early days of her premiership, but they were shelved when it became clear they were unpopular with the party membership, and with Brexit taking so much time in Westminster and Whitehall it has never going to happen at that time, then those plans died when she was kicked out, but I suspect a streamlining of the process (similar to the Scottish bill, maybe with the age kept at 18) will happen in this country within a decade or so when everyone cools down a bit and trans people become more visible, as in, like, a major storyline on Eastenders or Coronation Street level of visibility.
They might have been proposed but at UK level. The point I was making was that Sturgeon deliberately brought forward a bill that encroached on reserved matters to cause an argument with the UK to use as fuel to keep her acolytes happy. She has used trans people as pawns for her own political capital.

I agree in time I think it will happen, but the point of the GRR bill wasn’t as it appears intended such as the deceit pushed by the Scottish assembly.

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:45 pm

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:21 am
Just to...
It is refreshing to see different views expressed without the insults. Too much to unpack and no time. I do think many readers of your post will think it supports JKR's view (although to be clear I do not think you have any intention of deliberate misogyny).

I would ask you to consider one thing Spiral. I am guessing you are not aware that even the language you use to address the question about whether you are "condescending cisgender women" is actually condescending and demeaning to a lot of women. Many women (and men) are neither "trans" nor "cis" nor "cisgender" because they do not believe in gender identity ideology and do not have a gender identity. Notably, many of the lesbians that I have referred to have spent most of their lives battling against gender stereotypes and find this ideology regressive. So for example, you might believe that Isla Bryson and Tiffany Scott are women, which you are free to believe. But I hope you would not seek to enforce your beliefs on the rest of the country, as some sort of national religion, anymore than say a buddhist would enforce their beliefs. You might think it is provocative to choose the extreme examples of Bryson and Scott, but it is only as a result of these examples that many people have woken up to some of the problems. The point being that it is impossible for any woman to know whether a trans woman is sincere or what you call a "predator playing dress-up". The other point being that in a number of situations the sincerity of the person should not make a difference to policy (sport being an example). We will only find solutions that work best for everyone, whatever their beliefs, if we stop pretending that sex never matters. If you have any doubts about that - ask a woman!

Jakubclaret
Posts: 9434
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 10:47 pm
Been Liked: 1180 times
Has Liked: 778 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Jakubclaret » Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:59 pm

Back in the day men were men & women were women & life were so ****ing simple

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:00 pm

1882Clarets1882 wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:58 am
The slurs are just part and parcel of dealing with people who have a deep seated belief in their own moral superiority. They believe that anyone holding an opinion that differs from their own is fundamentally evil. Slurs come straight out their play book.

The slurs dished out serve 2 purposes. The first is straight forward attempt to silence opinions. The second is straight out of their play book and plays on the natural human impulse to defend one's self from unfounded personal accusations. They're losing the argument. Out comes the slur. Then they just sit back and watch while the person on the receiving end is distracted away from the topic, defending their character. You see it time and time again on hear.
It does appear that way at times. I hadn't thought of your last point but I have spent a lot of time doing exactly that. I ignore some of the slurs but if you ignore them all a new reader might think they are true.

dsr
Posts: 15138
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 4549 times
Has Liked: 2241 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by dsr » Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:03 pm

Spiral wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 3:13 pm
I think that kind of scenario would be terrifying for a cis woman, I'm with you there, but that already can happen, and if they were intimidating women they would be removed for intimidating women, and the owner of the premises where this occurs would have to show that they were proportionate in their actions in removing this person if they were to face a legal challenge for discriminating on the basis of a protected characteristic, but again, this already can happen, and changes to the legal process by which a trans person gains legal recognition of their gender will not change any of this, as I said, because you don't need a certificate to enter a changing room. We already operate self-ID policies, certificates recognising your gender don't change that. GRR simply streamlines a legal process, it doesn't alter the status quo in these scenarios that are being presented.
It absolutely alters the status quo. In the old rules, if an evil man walked into a ladies' changing room and took his clothes off, he could be stopped before he got aggressive towards the women and children present. Now, he can't. They have to wait until he performs an aggressive act before they stop him (and even then, they have to be careful because - as you say - they could be sued at the drop of a hat).

android
Posts: 670
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2016 10:01 am
Been Liked: 119 times
Has Liked: 43 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by android » Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:03 pm

Middle-agedClaret wrote:
Mon Jan 30, 2023 1:40 pm
I think some of the posters on here should maybe get a hobby.
You know - perhaps finding a football team to support?
I am going to take your advice and take a break from this topic for a while. UTC
These 2 users liked this post: Middle-agedClaret Greenmile

Clovius Boofus
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 11:47 am
Been Liked: 552 times
Has Liked: 161 times

Re: Sebastian Coe

Post by Clovius Boofus » Mon Jan 30, 2023 5:13 pm

Sturgeon; trans women are women, except when they're not.

https://twitter.com/PeterAdamSmith/stat ... 9900755970

Post Reply