Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the Tories have found another minority to pick on now the Irish, Blacks , Jews and Muslems are too organised. However much they do love shit stiring there is a very simple and relativity inexpensive solution to their invented toilet issue .. simply redesignate "Disabled cublicles" as "Physically challenged and Privacy necessary ". These single person units are already unisex and the only cost would be a newly designed door sign. Sorry to take the wind out the bigots sails ..they'll have to find another minority to persecute now...oh dear." disabled bogs are for disabled people im pretty sure being trans dosent count as a disability | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the Tories have found another minority to pick on now the Irish, Blacks , Jews and Muslems are too organised. However much they do love shit stiring there is a very simple and relativity inexpensive solution to their invented toilet issue .. simply redesignate "Disabled cublicles" as "Physically challenged and Privacy necessary ". These single person units are already unisex and the only cost would be a newly designed door sign. Sorry to take the wind out the bigots sails ..they'll have to find another minority to persecute now...oh dear." Disagree with your label, but if you think of the stereo type ladies and gents image, draw half male and half female together, then add simple disabled icon, job done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the Tories have found another minority to pick on now the Irish, Blacks , Jews and Muslems are too organised. However much they do love shit stiring there is a very simple and relativity inexpensive solution to their invented toilet issue .. simply redesignate "Disabled cublicles" as "Physically challenged and Privacy necessary ". These single person units are already unisex and the only cost would be a newly designed door sign. Sorry to take the wind out the bigots sails ..they'll have to find another minority to persecute now...oh dear." A well-meaning artist tried this a few years ago at one of her gigs. She apologised that the venue had men's and women's toilets (for their respective biological sexes only) and that this was not negotiable but the venue. So she offered disabled toilets to those for whom those arrangements were unacceptable. Disabled people then got upset, explaining that they already had enough difficulty with toilet access and that this simply pushed them further down, since they could not choose to use any other toilets. This really isn't a solution, unless someone is offering to build a whole lot more disabled toilets. Or, this might happen: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D49vvl7BPro (not for the faint of heart) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the Tories have found another minority to pick on now the Irish, Blacks , Jews and Muslems are too organised. However much they do love shit stiring there is a very simple and relativity inexpensive solution to their invented toilet issue .. simply redesignate "Disabled cublicles" as "Physically challenged and Privacy necessary ". These single person units are already unisex and the only cost would be a newly designed door sign. Sorry to take the wind out the bigots sails ..they'll have to find another minority to persecute now...oh dear." Lots of music venues and pubs round here just have unisex bathrooms with cubicles. Problem solved. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the Tories have found another minority to pick on now the Irish, Blacks , Jews and Muslems are too organised. However much they do love shit stiring there is a very simple and relativity inexpensive solution to their invented toilet issue .. simply redesignate "Disabled cublicles" as "Physically challenged and Privacy necessary ". These single person units are already unisex and the only cost would be a newly designed door sign. Sorry to take the wind out the bigots sails ..they'll have to find another minority to persecute now...oh dear. Lots of music venues and pubs round here just have unisex bathrooms with cubicles. Problem solved." Agreed, new builds should definitely consider this. Many older buildings (or those with restricted space) can't afford the space or logistics, though. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah, maybe there is another answer. For example, you have four toilets: So . . . Males toilets have one urinal and two cubicals and a twin sink. Females have two cubicals and a twin sink. It wouldn't be that difficult to have two doors alongside each other with a partition wall between, and remove the urinals entirely in the male toilets. Then have one cubical and one sink. The same with the female toilets. The only thing to designate then is that the toilets are for use by anyone and are single occupancy. " Isn't part of the issue that some blokes can be right dirty bastards and women may not want to use the same facilities? Hubby only has experience at student bars years ago and the lads toilets were by far the worst. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah, maybe there is another answer. For example, you have four toilets: So . . . Males toilets have one urinal and two cubicals and a twin sink. Females have two cubicals and a twin sink. It wouldn't be that difficult to have two doors alongside each other with a partition wall between, and remove the urinals entirely in the male toilets. Then have one cubical and one sink. The same with the female toilets. The only thing to designate then is that the toilets are for use by anyone and are single occupancy. Isn't part of the issue that some blokes can be right dirty bastards and women may not want to use the same facilities? Hubby only has experience at student bars years ago and the lads toilets were by far the worst." Single occupancy is the answer | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think we should just give everyone a water recycler kit like they wear in the Dune film and be done with. Saves time, real estate and water. We should invest in this technology." If you want to go down this route will you be advocating for giant sand worms to be introduced to keep down on rough sleepers? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think we should just give everyone a water recycler kit like they wear in the Dune film and be done with. Saves time, real estate and water. We should invest in this technology. If you want to go down this route will you be advocating for giant sand worms to be introduced to keep down on rough sleepers?" Don't give ideas for the Tories  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Ah, maybe there is another answer. For example, you have four toilets: So . . . Males toilets have one urinal and two cubicals and a twin sink. Females have two cubicals and a twin sink. It wouldn't be that difficult to have two doors alongside each other with a partition wall between, and remove the urinals entirely in the male toilets. Then have one cubical and one sink. The same with the female toilets. The only thing to designate then is that the toilets are for use by anyone and are single occupancy. Isn't part of the issue that some blokes can be right dirty bastards and women may not want to use the same facilities? Hubby only has experience at student bars years ago and the lads toilets were by far the worst. Single occupancy is the answer" The queues in nightclubs for the gents would be like the queues for the ladies. The urinals make for a quick pee and go. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the Tories have found another minority to pick on now the Irish, Blacks , Jews and Muslems are too organised. However much they do love shit stiring there is a very simple and relativity inexpensive solution to their invented toilet issue .. simply redesignate "Disabled cublicles" as "Physically challenged and Privacy necessary ". These single person units are already unisex and the only cost would be a newly designed door sign. Sorry to take the wind out the bigots sails ..they'll have to find another minority to persecute now...oh dear." Glad somebody actually recognises what is happening but this is not new. Trans people have been dealing with this issue for many years - 22 years in my case, when in 2002, I told my employer that I wanted to undergo gender reassignment. The HR officer's first thoughts on the matter involved a mental picture of me standing at a urinal with my skirt hoisted round my waist, which she unwisely chose to vocalise. Toilet facilities are only a small part of a much bigger narrative which successive governments have been bungling since 1999 when the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was amended to allow Trans people (limited) protection from discrimination in the workplace. On Monday the outgoing (and hopefully never returning) Women and Equalities minister announced that if they won the election, a Conservative government would amend the definition of sex Which would see trans people stripped of the rights they have enjoyed since 2011, when the Equality Act 2010 came into effect. People like me who have lived their lives for years are bring forced back into spaces we don't feel we belong in ... not just toilets, but all services which cater to women only will be off limits to trans women and, mutatis mutandis, to trans men. All this is happening largely because an overly rich author who had experienced domestic violence at the hands of her male partner projected her experience onto a much bigger picture and funded a huge campaign to establish in principle that, in humans, our sex is something we are born with and cannot be changed. She has been supported in her endeavours by a so-called feminist movement espousing gender critical beliefs. For the avoidance of doubt I despise men who inflict violence on women (and vice versa) as a means of control and what happened to JK Rowling was unforgivable. Domestic violence is a stain on our society. But as somebody who has been involved in the commissioning and delivery of lgbt+ support services I know that trans people are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators. Closing the door to DV support services on transwomen because you do not believe trans women are women violates every principle of the Equality Act. In Forstater v CGD the courts found in favour of the Claimant and established that it is unlawful to discriminate against somebody for holding the belief that sex cannot be changed. It is overlooked that the very same ruling also supports a contrary position. Evangelical Christians and the far right have invested in the gender critical movement and their goal is much bigger than excluding trans people from public conveniences. They are offended by our presence and they do not want to see us in their world. It is a familiar story. It begins with the propagation of hate speech, then people are excluded from society and subjected to violence and sometimes it leads to genocide. So remember that it isn't just about toilets. It's about our right to be the people we are. But right here and now I've been working on this post too long and I need a wee ... Resources The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon W Allport 1954 The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust www.hmd.org.uk Forstater v CGD Europe and others ET/22200909/2019 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So the Tories have found another minority to pick on now the Irish, Blacks , Jews and Muslems are too organised. However much they do love shit stiring there is a very simple and relativity inexpensive solution to their invented toilet issue .. simply redesignate "Disabled cublicles" as "Physically challenged and Privacy necessary ". These single person units are already unisex and the only cost would be a newly designed door sign. Sorry to take the wind out the bigots sails ..they'll have to find another minority to persecute now...oh dear. Glad somebody actually recognises what is happening but this is not new. Trans people have been dealing with this issue for many years - 22 years in my case, when in 2002, I told my employer that I wanted to undergo gender reassignment. The HR officer's first thoughts on the matter involved a mental picture of me standing at a urinal with my skirt hoisted round my waist, which she unwisely chose to vocalise. Toilet facilities are only a small part of a much bigger narrative which successive governments have been bungling since 1999 when the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was amended to allow Trans people (limited) protection from discrimination in the workplace. On Monday the outgoing (and hopefully never returning) Women and Equalities minister announced that if they won the election, a Conservative government would amend the definition of sex Which would see trans people stripped of the rights they have enjoyed since 2011, when the Equality Act 2010 came into effect. People like me who have lived their lives for years are bring forced back into spaces we don't feel we belong in ... not just toilets, but all services which cater to women only will be off limits to trans women and, mutatis mutandis, to trans men. All this is happening largely because an overly rich author who had experienced domestic violence at the hands of her male partner projected her experience onto a much bigger picture and funded a huge campaign to establish in principle that, in humans, our sex is something we are born with and cannot be changed. She has been supported in her endeavours by a so-called feminist movement espousing gender critical beliefs. For the avoidance of doubt I despise men who inflict violence on women (and vice versa) as a means of control and what happened to JK Rowling was unforgivable. Domestic violence is a stain on our society. But as somebody who has been involved in the commissioning and delivery of lgbt+ support services I know that trans people are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators. Closing the door to DV support services on transwomen because you do not believe trans women are women violates every principle of the Equality Act. In Forstater v CGD the courts found in favour of the Claimant and established that it is unlawful to discriminate against somebody for holding the belief that sex cannot be changed. It is overlooked that the very same ruling also supports a contrary position. Evangelical Christians and the far right have invested in the gender critical movement and their goal is much bigger than excluding trans people from public conveniences. They are offended by our presence and they do not want to see us in their world. It is a familiar story. It begins with the propagation of hate speech, then people are excluded from society and subjected to violence and sometimes it leads to genocide. So remember that it isn't just about toilets. It's about our right to be the people we are. But right here and now I've been working on this post too long and I need a wee ... Resources The Nature of Prejudice, Gordon W Allport 1954 The Holocaust Memorial Day Trust www.hmd.org.uk Forstater v CGD Europe and others ET/22200909/2019" If the law is to be changed it will need to be debated, voted upon and therefore be agreed. Through our MP’s the decision would follow the law of the land, and the outcome is not a foregone conclusion but it would be fair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. " Losing votes to Reform. " The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex Are they saying the exceptions don't work... And if not why not address that ? It's telling that they (afaik) haven't called out toilets as an example. Tje ones they did seem to have the potential to be covered by the exceptions. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. " That no one in their right mind is going to vote for them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex" That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. " This is just it, they’re not trying to solve a problem, they’re trying to distract people by drawing their anger and hate towards any group other than themselves and the Trans community has become an easy target to get peoples pulses racing. This election day, don’t allow yourself to be blinded to the real issues that affect the country | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow." But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow. But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. "" My take made for easier reading  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow. But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. " My take made for easier reading "yh. Howevee quoting EHCR may helps add to the credibility do what I'm saying  especially as my ability to write is hampered by my brain ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow. But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. " My take made for easier reading yh. Howevee quoting EHCR may helps add to the credibility do what I'm saying especially as my ability to write is hampered by my brain ! "You have a brain injury too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow. But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. " My take made for easier reading yh. Howevee quoting EHCR may helps add to the credibility do what I'm saying especially as my ability to write is hampered by my brain !
You have a brain injury too? "nope, just neuro spicy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex" "That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow." "But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. "" Agreed. However an argument could be made that the word 'trans' only applies to people that are transitioning, and that the issue of a gender recognition certificate is proof that the person has now 'changed sex', and is not covered by the 'trans' parts of the law. It would be a poor argument, but lawyers love this sort of challenge, and could come up with endless quibbles about exactly what each word means. Hundreds of cases could be brought, and only one of them needs to succeed to cause a precedent and change the interpretation. That can all be forestalled if the Act contains a well written definition of what 'sex' is, and who falls into which category. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow. But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. " Agreed. However an argument could be made that the word 'trans' only applies to people that are transitioning, and that the issue of a gender recognition certificate is proof that the person has now 'changed sex', and is not covered by the 'trans' parts of the law. It would be a poor argument, but lawyers love this sort of challenge, and could come up with endless quibbles about exactly what each word means. Hundreds of cases could be brought, and only one of them needs to succeed to cause a precedent and change the interpretation. That can all be forestalled if the Act contains a well written definition of what 'sex' is, and who falls into which category." or a well written explanation in the exceptions bit that says when it comes to GRC, they are defined based on sex at birth regardless of what their certificate now says. The fact we don't have this in case law suggests we are currently arguing over hypotheticals, even tho it's been in place for years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex" "That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow." "But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. "" "Agreed. However an argument could be made that the word 'trans' only applies to people that are transitioning, and that the issue of a gender recognition certificate is proof that the person has now 'changed sex', and is not covered by the 'trans' parts of the law. It would be a poor argument, but lawyers love this sort of challenge, and could come up with endless quibbles about exactly what each word means. Hundreds of cases could be brought, and only one of them needs to succeed to cause a precedent and change the interpretation. That can all be forestalled if the Act contains a well written definition of what 'sex' is, and who falls into which category." "or a well written explanation in the exceptions bit that says when it comes to GRC, they are defined based on sex at birth regardless of what their certificate now says." That might be exactly what they are planning. No one knows yet. "The fact we don't have this in case law suggests we are currently arguing over hypotheticals, even tho it's been in place for years." Agreed, we are arguing over hypotheticals. But that hasn't stopped a whole load of people insisting that the only possible reason for the Tories wanting to change the law is that they are attempting to exterminate trans people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Again, I'm not sure what the problem is the Tories are trying to solve. The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex That's true, but it doesn't work if no one can agree what 'sex' means. My understanding is that they intend to put in a definition of 'sex', so that the courts can tell what the law does and doesn't allow. But according to my reading if EHRC one can provision against trans. " There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. " Agreed. However an argument could be made that the word 'trans' only applies to people that are transitioning, and that the issue of a gender recognition certificate is proof that the person has now 'changed sex', and is not covered by the 'trans' parts of the law. It would be a poor argument, but lawyers love this sort of challenge, and could come up with endless quibbles about exactly what each word means. Hundreds of cases could be brought, and only one of them needs to succeed to cause a precedent and change the interpretation. That can all be forestalled if the Act contains a well written definition of what 'sex' is, and who falls into which category. or a well written explanation in the exceptions bit that says when it comes to GRC, they are defined based on sex at birth regardless of what their certificate now says. That might be exactly what they are planning. No one knows yet. The fact we don't have this in case law suggests we are currently arguing over hypotheticals, even tho it's been in place for years. Agreed, we are arguing over hypotheticals. But that hasn't stopped a whole load of people insisting that the only possible reason for the Tories wanting to change the law is that they are attempting to exterminate trans people." that's ott (not seen it). But if they are looking at a subtle change, they are fanning other flames on a sensitive topic by what they have said to date. Which isn't a good look in itself. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agreed, we are arguing over hypotheticals. But that hasn't stopped a whole load of people insisting that the only possible reason for the Tories wanting to change the law is that they are attempting to exterminate trans people." "that's ott (not seen it)." Search this thread for "genocide", then read the paragraphs above. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Agreed, we are arguing over hypotheticals. But that hasn't stopped a whole load of people insisting that the only possible reason for the Tories wanting to change the law is that they are attempting to exterminate trans people. that's ott (not seen it). Search this thread for "genocide", then read the paragraphs above." thx. Tbf I don't think the poster is saying the only reason Tories want this is an attempt to exterminate, but that this can be a (unintended) consequence of targeting a marginalised group. I think today's Tory party just want votes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
