Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Gimme A Pound · 05-05-2019 3:10pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

No company should be obliged to continue employing someone they feel represents them publicly in a negative light.

The issue here though is: did she represent them in a negative light? She didn't even mention them. The fact she works for them - well "These views are my own and do not represent those of my employer." Plus, what's negative about what she said? Nothing. People will pretend or assume she was saying terrible hateful things about transgender people, but of course she wasn't at all.

It won't make people transphobes just to acknowledge a view like that of this woman.

Candamir · 05-05-2019 3:10pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's "everybody's business"? To the extent that the poster was worried about a referendum being called?

No, just an example of how it’s not just the business of trans persons, when their wish to exert what they perceive should be their rights, infringe on other people’s rights.
That’s why I think it’s important that an open discussion is allowed and encouraged and not shut down as we see here, and in many other instances (Martins Navratilova is another recent example).
I’d be fearful that the acceptance that trans people have gained will be harmed more than helped by this demonising anyone with an opinion anything other than that a trans woman is biologically the same as a cis gender woman

Gimme A Pound · 05-05-2019 3:11pm

Zorya wrote: »

This is not what is at issue.

Your argument falls under Straw Man fallacy by making the problem seem to be about something else - trivial - that is not at all the problem.

It falls under the False Dichotomy argument by over-simplifying the issues, making out there are only a limited number of things at stake or a limited number of ways of looking at those issues.

It falls under the Red Herring fallacy because it diverts the argument to things that are not the issue.

It even falls under the Appeal to Pity fallacy by making out that people are either stupid or monstrous if they question this gender ideology in any way.

Mr Parrot and to a lesser extent yourself also use the Bandwagon Fallacy as if all the other fallacies are not enough.

The issue is not about Bob being called Shirley. You know this.

Spot on.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-05-2019 3:12pm

Zorya wrote: »

It is discrimination against someone's right to have a political opinion that is backed by science regarding the ''material reality'' of sex.

Open to correction on this, but I don't think you can call discrimination on the basis of holding an opinion - you have to BE something rather than think something.

KikiLaRue · 05-05-2019 3:13pm

Breanna Slimy Variable wrote: »

The issue here though is: did she represent them in a negative light? She didn't even mention them. The fact she works for them - well "These views are my own and do not represent those of my employer." Plus, what's negative about what she said? Nothing. People will pretend or assume she was saying terrible hateful things about transgender people, but of course she wasn't at all.

It won't make people transphobes just to acknowledge a view like that of this woman.

Most companies have a Mission Statement, a Vision and a Values statement. A company like this almost definitely would, and D&I would be front and centre. You get them in your induction pack on your first day usually

If she is expressing views that go against all of these, they have a right to protect their reputation by ending their contract with her.

Candamir · 05-05-2019 3:16pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Most companies have a Mission Statement, a Vision and a Values statement. A company like this almost definitely would, and D&I would be front and centre. You get them in your induction pack on your first day usually

If she is expressing views that go against all of these, they have a right to protect their reputation by ending their contract with her.

Which of her views from the linked article do you think got her into trouble on the D&I front?

Zorya · 05-05-2019 3:16pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

That's not a right companies are required to uphold; companies are obligated to protect their reputation.

What about journalists? Medical personnel? Policy makers? Educators? What if they speak out against non-scientific policy?

What about the right to be a conscientious objector?

Well, as we already see they are resigning in droves, being deplatformed, being refused speaking space at campuses, and so on. You can speak of companies ''rights'' as if they are the final arbiters of truth - but just because they claim ''rights'' that trumps the individual conscience does not make it sane, sensible or desirable. I'm sure people have long argued in totalitarian systems that the policies were implemented by those who had the ''right'' to do so.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-05-2019 3:17pm

Candamir wrote: »

No, just an example of how it’s not just the business of trans persons, when their wish to exert what they perceive should be their rights, infringe on other people’s rights.
That’s why I think it’s important that an open discussion is allowed and encouraged and not shut down as we see here, and in many other instances (Martins Navratilova is another recent example).
I’d be fearful that the acceptance that trans people have gained will be harmed more than helped by this demonising anyone with an opinion anything other than that a trans woman is biologically the same as a cis gender woman

The original point was that it's none of anyone else's business if someone want's to transition; or as the poster put it, "if Bob wants to become Shirley".

What they do after trasnsitoning is a different scenario. (In any case, I thought they had limits on the amount of testosterone a body could have in order to be classes female - even down to conducting drug tests? Not sure though - don't follow athletics)

How Soon Is Now · 05-05-2019 3:18pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's "everybody's business"? To the extent that the poster was worried about a referendum being called?

I'm not worried about it. All I'm saying is I wouldnt be surprised if at some point down the line we would have to vote on some kinda trans issues.

I mean who would of taught years and years ago we be voting on gay marriage.

It's everyone's business when the issues at hand are being integrated into wider society or expected of people.

Candamir · 05-05-2019 3:25pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The original point was that it's none of anyone else's business if someone want's to transition; or as the poster put it, "if Bob wants to become Shirley".

What they do after trasnsitoning is a different scenario. (In any case, I thought they had limits on the amount of testosterone a body could have in order to be classes female - even down to conducting drug tests? Not sure though - don't follow athletics)

Isn’t that the crux of it though?
I don’t see anyone arguing here that people shouldn’t be allowed transition, or that we shouldn’t respect a persons right to affirm a different gender identity.
I didn’t see any of those opinions in the article either.
What is everyone’s business is how we protect the rights of everyone in so far as we can. When trans women insist that they are no different to biological women, there’s going to be points where rights clash, as in the case of women’s sports. Some transgender women argue that they should be allowed to compete without any medical transition, and that is the case that’s currently allowed in some US states.
It’s a discussion that should be had without fear of losing your job or being bullied.

KikiLaRue · 05-05-2019 3:27pm

Candamir wrote: »

Which of her views from the linked article do you think got her into trouble on the D&I front?

I don't know; I've only seen her article, I haven't looked for the company's statement and don't know if there is one yet.

But I work with a lot of global companies that really value D&I and I think they would take similar steps.

This is why you get told all the time to be careful what you post on social media in case your employer sees it.

Candamir · 05-05-2019 3:29pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don't know; I've only seen her article, I haven't looked for the company's statement and don't know if there is one yet.

But I work with a lot of global companies that really value D&I and I think they would take similar steps.

This is why you get told all the time to be careful what you post on social media in case your employer sees it.

But what points that she made do you think could be considered discriminatory? I’m really struggling to see where she went so wrong.

BorneTobyWilde · 05-05-2019 3:31pm

World is too PC, It seems people in positions of influence have lost their freedom of free speech. If you are in anyway in the public light you have lost your right to free speech, as if you use it there will be consequences, and that can't be right.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-05-2019 3:42pm

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

I'm not worried about it. All I'm saying is I wouldnt be surprised if at some point down the line we would have to vote on some kinda trans issues.

I mean who would of taught years and years ago we be voting on gay marriage.

It's everyone's business when the issues at hand are being integrated into wider society or expected of people.

Candamir wrote: »

Isn’t that the crux of it though?
I don’t see anyone arguing here that people shouldn’t be allowed transition, or that we shouldn’t respect a persons right to affirm a different gender identity.
I didn’t see any of those opinions in the article either.
What is everyone’s business is how we protect the rights of everyone in so far as we can. When trans women insist that they are no different to biological women, there’s going to be points where rights clash, as in the case of women’s sports. Some transgender women argue that they should be allowed to compete without any medical transition, and that is the case that’s currently allowed in some US states.
It’s a discussion that should be had without fear of losing your job or being bullied.

Same answer to both of you: no it's NOT your business.

You're both confusing the act with the possible consequences.

The act - If someone wants to transition they do not need a referendum, State permission or to explain the reasons they wish to transition. End of story.

The consequence - what they wish to do with their lives afterwards - get married, compete in sport, etc, - might be. That's what it might become an issue, but not before.

05-05-2019 3:46pm

Joeytheparrot wrote:

That would be discrimination and it is enshrined in law.

It's discrimination to adhere to the Kindergarten Cop act of 1991 where even then, a young child knew the difference between a boy and a girl?

Joeytheparrot wrote:

All the anti LGBT bandwagonning going on around here lately and you come out with this.

Nope. None of that happening. Seems to be a lot of people sick of this type of bull****. Not the same as being anti LGBT. Also, you left out the other letters too you bigot. Thought you were better than that Joey. So exclusionist

Deleted User wrote:

So.... Intersex people are what? An inconvenience?

No, an anomaly. Unusual. Not regular. Not less human.

Candamir · 05-05-2019 3:55pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Same answer to both of you: no it's NOT your business.

You're both confusing the act with the possible consequences.

The act - If someone wants to transition they do not need a referendum, State permission or to explain the reasons they wish to transition. End of story.

The consequence - what they wish to do with their lives afterwards - get married, compete in sport, etc, - might be. That's what it might become an issue, but not before.

I’m not confused about anything! I agree with your first sentence. Fully on board there (with a caveat that children are a special case)

The second sentence - that exactly what I’m talking about. We’re in that phase right now, where people have transitioned, and there needs to be a discussion on what we should be doing.
That’s what the article was addressing too as far as I can see.

Annasopra · 05-05-2019 3:56pm

Augme wrote: »

Since when has policital opinion been covered under the equality act?

It is the UK. Not in Ireland

Baggly · 05-05-2019 3:59pm

Mod

Brendan delaney, improve the standard of your posting and treat other posters with respect, or don't post again. Thanks

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-05-2019 4:01pm

Candamir wrote: »

I’m not confused about anything! I agree with your first sentence. Fully on board there (with a caveat that children are a special case)

The second sentence - that exactly what I’m talking about. We’re in that phase right now, where people have transitioned, and there needs to be a discussion on what we should be doing.
That’s what the article was addressing too as far as I can see.

But that's my point: the initial poster was saying that it WAS his business if someone wanted to transition.

Zorya · 05-05-2019 4:03pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But that's my point: the initial poster was saying that it WAS his business if someone wanted to transition.

Which initial poster?

Gatling · 05-05-2019 4:06pm

This is utter nonsense ,

People losing their jobs because work places have become over sensitive to a tiny minorities feelings.

Can we please get back to some semblance of normality please.

It's not hate to say man = man and Woman =woman ,
If you want to be a cross between an alien and Unicorn don't feel the need to cry to the authorities if people say otherwise

How Soon Is Now · 05-05-2019 4:08pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But that's my point: the initial poster was saying that it WAS his business if someone wanted to transition.

Who mentioned transition?

Candamir · 05-05-2019 4:25pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

But that's my point: the initial poster was saying that it WAS his business if someone wanted to transition.

I didn’t read it that way tbh, and if that was their view, well i disagree. It’s nobody's business if a person wants to transition, or express a non conformist gender identity and not transition. It’s nobodys business but their own.

The OP was about a woman who was sacked for expressing a view about transgender people and society, and as far as I can see, calling for an open discussion about rights etc etc

You seem to agree that this is a valid discussion to have. Unfortunately your voice, and voices like yours, and mine, and being drowned out by the no platformers out there, and there seems to be a huge number of people who seem to be going along for the ride - inclusion=good, anyone who may express concerns about how the rights of the many could be affected=bad.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-05-2019 5:00pm

Zorya wrote: »

Which initial poster?

How Soon Is Now - see below

Deleted User wrote: »

I just never get why non trans people get so up in arms about it anyway.

It's literally none of your business. If Bob wants to be called Shirley and be referred to as her, why is that so hard to get? What difference would it make to your life? You've learned many things, how to walk, a language, drive etc. Far harder things than remembering Bob is now Shirley and would prefer you to call her, "her".

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

It's none of our business grand. Remember that boys and girls if the day ever comes and the country is asked to vote on any trans related issues.

(Apologies if I inferred I meant it was you as the thread starter - not the case!)

KikiLaRue · 05-05-2019 5:11pm

Candamir wrote: »

But what points that she made do you think could be considered discriminatory? I’m really struggling to see where she went so wrong.

Let me give you some context on this. A few months ago my boss in Canada asked me to come up with a fun group name for everyone who works in our Travel sector. There was no plan to use it externally, purely for internal use.

I suggested “Travel Tribe”.

My boss rejected this on the basis that some indigenous tribes don’t like the term tribe being used colloquially to describe groups that are not actual tribes.

I told her I thought it was PC gone mad (and most of the time I hate that phrase) and she said “yeah, but it only takes one person to complain”.

So I’m not saying I personally think she said anything wrong (it’s an issue I’m still formulating an opinion on) but big firms always err strongly on the side of caution.

Similarly, we were not allowed to wear pro-life or pro-choice badges, tops etc at work during the referendum.

Zorya · 05-05-2019 5:15pm

Having just set up her crowd funding project Maya raised more than £32,000 so far today of her £30,000 goal to fund her to go to the tribunal.

Candamir · 05-05-2019 5:18pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

Let me give you some context on this. A few months ago my boss in Canada asked me to come up with a fun group name for everyone who works in our Travel sector. There was no plan to use it externally, purely for internal use.

I suggested “Travel Tribe”.

My boss rejected this on the basis that some indigenous tribes don’t like the term tribe being used colloquially to describe groups that are not actual tribes.

I told her I thought it was PC gone mad (and most of the time I hate that phrase) and she said “yeah, but it only takes one person to complain”.

So I’m not saying I personally think she said anything wrong (it’s an issue I’m still formulating an opinion on) but big firms always err strongly on the side of caution.

Similarly, we were not allowed to wear pro-life or pro-choice badges, tops etc at work during the referendum.

Did you get sacked for your ‘travel tribe’ suggestion?

So it’s the case that we can’t have a discussion in public, airing views that the vast majority of people don’t find offensive or discriminatory, (and are clearly meant that way), on a subject that clearly puts the rights of different groups on a collision course, because there’s a chance that a small minority of a small group might take unintended offence?

Even though the consequence of this non discussion is that many many people, particularly women and girls will find themselves discriminated against, put at a disadvantage, and perhaps in danger?

Is that really ok?

KikiLaRue · 05-05-2019 5:26pm

Candamir wrote: »

Did you get sacked for your ‘travel tribe’ suggestion?

No, but if I had gone on to Medium and wrote a long post about how it was PC gone mad, followed by a bunch of tweets about it, I expect I'd have faced some disciplinary action.

Candamir wrote: »

So it’s the case that we can’t have a discussion in public, airing views that the vast majority of people don’t find offensive or discriminatory, (and are clearly meant that way), on a subject that clearly puts the rights of different groups on a collision course, because there’s a chance that a small minority of a small group might take unintended offence?

You can be an activist or you can be a high profile business person. It's very difficult to be both without landing yourself in trouble.

Candamir wrote: »

Even though the consequence of this non discussion is that many many people, particularly women and girls will find themselves discriminated against, put at a disadvantage, and perhaps in danger?

Is that really ok?

I don't see how women and girls end up discriminated against? Aside from in Sport, which is a separate but related issue.

Here's how it works at my office: On each floor there are men's bathrooms, women's bathrooms and a disabled bathroom/ all gender bathroom.

Our shower room on the ground floor for people who cycle in is not segregated. There are four regular cubicles and one disabled one. Men and women share it, and it's absolutely no problem.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 5:27pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I told her I thought it was PC gone mad (and most of the time I hate that phrase) and she said “yeah, but it only takes one person to complain”.

I miss the days when big companies told people who complain to fcuk off.

How Soon Is Now · 05-05-2019 5:28pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

How Soon Is Now - see below

(Apologies if I inferred I meant it was you as the thread starter - not the case!)

If someone wants to be called something there not and causes up roar when a person doesn't address them by there title of choosing then yes it is our business because it includes everyone. Potentially anyone could be involved in this.

When you make a choice to change something about yourself and keep it to yourself then it's no one else's business but there not doing that!

If you force others to see things your way and only your way it's not just your business anymore as your bringing others into it.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 5:28pm

KikiLaRue wrote: »

I don't see how women and girls end up discriminated against? Aside from in Sport, which is a separate but related issue.

Here's how it works at my office: On each floor there are men's bathrooms, women's bathrooms and a disabled bathroom/ all gender bathroom.

Our shower room on the ground floor for people who cycle in is not segregated. There are four regular cubicles and one disabled one. Men and women share it, and it's absolutely no problem.

We must have been ahead of the curve. We've had a gender neutral toilet in our house since the 1950's. :pac::pac::pac:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-05-2019 5:34pm

How Soon Is Now wrote: »

If someone wants to be called something there not and causes up roar when a person doesn't address them by there title of choosing then yes it is our business because it includes everyone. Potentially anyone could be involved in this.

When you make a choice to change something about yourself and keep it to yourself then it's no one else's business but there not doing that!

If you force others to see things your way and only your way it's not just your business anymore as your bringing others into it.

So, if someone asked you to call them "Bob" instead of "Robert" would you say no, I'm calling you Robert because that's the name on your birth certificate and moan about Bob forcing his will on you?

Zorya · 05-05-2019 5:43pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, if someone asked you to call them "Bob" instead of "Robert" would you say no, I'm calling you Robert because that's the name on your birth certificate and moan about Bob forcing his will on you?

I don't care what people are called. Live among hippies long enough and names never surprise you

What about if someone compels me to publicly uphold the position that a biological male who identifies as a women is an ACTUAL woman? (Or vice versa re man). What do you say to this?

My belief is that they are a transwoman. Not a woman.. A Woman is an adult human female. Is it a problem or hate speech to believe that? What do you think?

(Nothing wrong with them being a transwoman at all, but there are undeniably implications for women regarding their sex-based rights if transwomen are to be given unquestioned access to female only spaces such as prison, shelters, sports etc. Etc Etc.)

eagle eye · 05-05-2019 5:45pm

Zorya wrote:

(Nothing wrong with them being a transwoman at all, but there are undeniably implications for women regarding their sex-based rights if transwomen are to be given unquestioned access to female only spaces such as prison, shelters, sports etc. Etc Etc.)

And you can be sure that it'll be abused by weirdos.

Zorya · 05-05-2019 5:49pm

eagle eye wrote: »

And you can be sure that it'll be abused by weirdos.

There have already been cases of rape in women's prisons and refuges.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-05-2019 5:51pm

Zorya wrote: »

I don't care what people are called. Live among hippies long enough and names never surprise you

What about if someone compels me to publicly uphold the position that a biological male who identifies as a women is an ACTUAL woman? (Or vice versa re man). What do you say to this?

My belief is that they are a transwoman. Not a woman.. A Woman is an adult human female. Is it a problem or hate speech to believe that? What do you think?

(Nothing wrong with them being a transwoman at all, but there are undeniably implications for women regarding their sex-based rights if transwomen are to be given unquestioned access to female only spaces such as prison, shelters, sports etc. Etc Etc.)

I'd uphold whatever position they asked me to, as long as it's not illegal - what's the problem?

You? Well, it sounds like YOU are forcing YOUR beliefs on THEM more than the other way around. You've even gone so far as to state exactly what those beliefs are.

I'm not saying I disagree with them - I'd personally go with the requested form of address than how I personally felt.

If I was in court and a Judge I felt was a complete knob-head asked to be addressed "Your Honour", I'd probably take the same stance - and not just because of the fear of contempt of court proceedings.

klaaaz · 05-05-2019 5:55pm

Zorya wrote:

Having just set up her crowd funding project Maya raised more than £32,000 so far today of her £30,000 goal to fund her to go to the tribunal.

Conservatives have deep pockets.

Zorya wrote: »

My belief is that they are a transwoman. Not a woman.. A Woman is an adult human female. Is it a problem or hate speech to believe that? What do you think?

A medically transitioned trans woman is an adult human female, they have changed sex. Most companies have policies in place for people who change sex and if you disagree with their policies, you're free not to join that company.

Zorya wrote: »

(Nothing wrong with them being a transwoman at all, but there are undeniably implications for women regarding their sex-based rights if transwomen are to be given unquestioned access to female only spaces such as prison, shelters, sports etc. Etc Etc.)

Medically transitioned trans women have already had access to these places for decades which are covered by the Equal Status act(Equality act in UK fyi) . You know this and hide it but you keep starting threads about transgender people based on hysterics.

ceadaoin. · 05-05-2019 5:59pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd uphold whatever position they asked me to, as long as it's not illegal - what's the problem?

You? Well, it sounds like YOU are forcing YOUR beliefs on THEM more than the other way around. You've even gone so far as to state exactly what those beliefs are.

I'm not saying I disagree with them - I'd personally go with the requested form of address than how I personally felt.

If I was in court and a Judge I felt was a complete knob-head asked to be addressed "Your Honour", I'd probably take the same stance - and not just because of the fear of contempt of court proceedings.

Acknowledging that sex is a biological reality and that women have specific rights based on that biology is not a "belief", it's a fact

And trying to paint the success of the crowdfund as somehow because of some shady organised "conservative" Kabal is a joke. It's ordinary women, many of whom are as far from right wing as you can get, who are sick of being told that they don't matter, plain and simple

How Soon Is Now · 05-05-2019 5:59pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So, if someone asked you to call them "Bob" instead of "Robert" would you say no, I'm calling you Robert because that's the name on your birth certificate and moan about Bob forcing his will on you?

If you change something about yourself don't expect others to go along with it just because it's what you want.

The choices we make that effect our own lives are OUR CHOICES not everyone else's.

Zorya · 05-05-2019 6:06pm

klaaaz wrote: »

A medically transitioned trans woman is an adult human female, they have changed sex..

No, they are not. No, they have not.

Are you going to try and ban/censor/fire me for my belief?

KikiLaRue · 05-05-2019 6:08pm

Zorya wrote: »

No, they are not. No, they have not.

Are you going to try and ban/censor/fire me for my belief?

I wouldn't, but if I was your boss and worked at a company that had made a public commitment to LGBT rights, I would probably encourage you not to air those views in a public forum.

klaaaz · 05-05-2019 6:10pm

Zorya wrote: »

Are you going to try and ban/censor/fire me for my belief?

No, I nor you are a moderator of this forum.

BattleCorp · 05-05-2019 6:10pm

I think every single regular poster here on boards has posted something that someone somewhere would find offensive.

And nothing wrong with that in my book as long as it's not speech that is illegal.

eagle eye · 05-05-2019 6:11pm

KikiLaRue wrote:

I wouldn't, but if I was your boss and worked at a company that had made a public commitment to LGBT rights, I would probably encourage you not to air those views in a public forum.

Yes but he is right. A woman has the possibility of being pregnant, a former man doesn't. They are not the same thing.

klaaaz · 05-05-2019 6:14pm

eagle eye wrote: »

A woman has the possibility of being pregnant, a former man doesn't. They are not the same thing.

Some women cannot get pregnant, it's shocking that you think that they are like men just because they are not a baby factory.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 05-05-2019 6:14pm

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Acknowledging that sex is a biological reality and that women have specific rights based on that biology is not a "belief", it's a fact

No, that's your opinion. Using the phrase "it's a fact" doens't actually change that.

And trying to paint the success of the crowdfund as somehow because of some shady organised "conservative" Kabal is a joke. It's ordinary women, many of whom are as far from right wing as you can get, who are sick of being told that they don't matter, plain and simple

Where did I talk about crowdfunding?

Zorya · 05-05-2019 6:15pm

klaaaz wrote: »

No, I nor you are a moderator of this forum.

If you were, would you, klaaaz? Would you like to see me banned?

Woman is an adult human female. She has hard won sex rights based on her biology. If she doesn't want to wax the balls of a transwoman she should not be taken to court. If she doesn't want to sleep with a lesbian with a penis, she should not be kicked off the Pride parade. If she doesn't want to have a TIM do an internal in hospital or strip search her, she should be allowed to object. If she does not want to share a cell or a refuge space with a male bodied person she should have her right to privacy protected. If she doesn't want compete at professional level in any sport against biological males she should be protected. Et cet eraaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh........................

KikiLaRue · 05-05-2019 6:17pm

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes but he is right. A woman has the possibility of being pregnant, a former man doesn't. They are not the same thing.

It's also true it takes a man and a women to make a baby, that's a scientific fact - but if you use it as an argument against gay marriage, it becomes a much more difficult position to justify.

klaaaz · 05-05-2019 6:21pm

Zorya wrote: »

If you were, would you, klaaaz? Would you like to see me banned?

I can't speculate on moderation, nice try to get me infracted.

Zorya wrote: »

Woman is an adult human female. She has hard won sex rights based on her biology. If she doesn't want to wax the balls of a transwoman she should not be taken to court. If she doesn't want to sleep with a lesbian with a penis, she should not be kicked off the Pride parade. If she doesn't want to have a TIM do an internal in hospital or strip search her, she should be allowed to object. If she does not want to share a cell or a refuge space with a male bodied person she should have her right to privacy protected. If she doesn't want compete at professional level in any sport against biological males she should be protected. Et cet eraaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh........................

Where in Ireland did all this happen? Look up the Equal Status act, it might educate you on rights in certain situations. Who is this Timothy filling your head?

khaldrogo · 05-05-2019 6:22pm

YFlyer wrote:

What is her view on lesbians sharing space and services that women use?

Are lesbians not women now???? I can't keep up

Woman Loses Job for Holding Gender Critical Opinions.

Comments