More transgender nonsense

Has it ever actually happened? I mean actual proof, not “a bloke in the pub said” or some crackpot website.

If it ever has, how does it compare with incidences of people simply entering such places despite not being allowed to, or peeping in some other way?
Yes, you can google plenty of incidents.

And your second point is irrelevant. In the same way its not ok to murder someone just because other people do.
 
Mate, I've honestly got no idea on the internal workings of a Michigan fitness centre three years ago, but the women at my fitness centre haven't complained about me or given any grief at all, and some have made a point of welcoming me and including me. Then again, I don't scream into the place yelling "I'M A WOMAN!!!!" and demanding special treatment, I just go in and change and do my yoga class, and chat if anyone talks to me.
Your whole argument seems to be that because your not doing anything naughty and your trans, then all trans people are well-behaved.

Which is total bollocks.

Excuse the pun.
 
I'm of a generation who still feels uncomfortable when a female lavatory cleaner starts going about her business when you're having a wazz in a public lavatory.
Yeah - she might see how small your fella is and tell all her friends. Soon everywhere you go women will laugh at you.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you can google plenty of incidents.

And your second point is irrelevant. In the same way its not ok to murder someone just because other people do.
It’s not a question of whether it’s OK - it’s not, and the laws covering sexual assault would apply regardless of gender identity.

It’s a question of whether it’s a big enough problem that we need to impose ADDITIONAL measures to stop it - for example, if someone was murdered with a pitchfork do we ban pitchforks, or accept that (a) the disadvantages of the ban would far outweigh the advantages and (b) that the murder would probably have happened anyway just in a slightly different format, had a pitchfork not been available.
 
It’s not a question of whether it’s OK - it’s not, and the laws covering sexual assault would apply regardless of gender identity.

It’s a question of whether it’s a big enough problem that we need to impose ADDITIONAL measures to stop it - for example, if someone was murdered with a pitchfork do we ban pitchforks, or accept that (a) the disadvantages of the ban would far outweigh the advantages and (b) that the murder would probably have happened anyway just in a slightly different format, had a pitchfork not been available.
If you want to question whether legislation is necessary purely based on the size of the problem, then there wouldn't be ANY trans legislation at all - it only affects around 0.3% of the population.

So, would you agree we don't need to legislate at all for Transgender rights - as they are already protected under human rights and equality laws already?

I suspect you don't think so, so your 'argument' is nonsense as you wouldn't apply the logic equally to all circumstances.
 
If you want to question whether legislation is necessary purely based on the size of the problem, then there wouldn't be ANY trans legislation at all - it only affects around 0.3% of the population.

So, would you agree we don't need to legislate at all for Transgender rights - as they are already protected under human rights and equality laws already?

I suspect you don't think so, so your 'argument' is nonsense as you wouldn't apply the logic equally to all circumstances.
I think that you missed the bit about advantages vs disadvantages. Protecting trans rights both protects thousands of people from discrimination and abuse, and makes Daily Mail readers angry - I can’t really see any downside to it.
 
I think that you missed the bit about advantages vs disadvantages. Protecting trans rights both protects thousands of people from discrimination and abuse, and makes Daily Mail readers angry - I can’t really see any downside to it.
Have 'trans' people lost the right to use a toilet or changing room? i must have missed that hate law. What rights are you 'protecting' exactly?

What this new legislation allows for is the possibility that individuals, both trans and not trans, could abuse the intent of the law to put at risk other people - mainly women and children.

There is no way to determine whether someone is genuinely transgender or not prior to allowing them into toilets, changing facilities or whatever.

Their safety is more important that allowing someone who is biologically male or female, from using the opposite facilities that give them a warm, fuzzy feeling inside for whatever reason.

In theory, i don't give a crap (excuse the pun) whether a pre-op trans lady uses the ladies toilets. I care about the implementation of the law, in a way that can be enforced, that provides for the safety of individuals first and provides for the feelings of someone a distant second.

People have and are abusing these kinds of laws already, both trans and not.
 
I think that you missed the bit about advantages vs disadvantages. Protecting trans rights both protects thousands of people from discrimination and abuse, and makes Daily Mail readers angry - I can’t really see any downside to it.
I'm all for protecting the mentally ill.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top