Starmer finds it 'unbelievable' that he wasn't given the information. . .

Well I agree with him there - it is not, in any way believable at all . . .

Err, doesn't this mean KS misled parliament . . . ?

The thing is ,even if they are only losing 1%, given the dire state of their polling one would have thought they would want to prevent any percentage loss at all. . .

It's great there has been a concession (of some sort), but as you said lots still to do.

Is there an update on the appeal to the High Court's ruling on the challenge to the guidance?

But, I do feel that your 'points' are 'unreasonable', but have no idea whether you yourself are 'unreasonable' - nor have I suggested that.
However, I appreciate the time is late, so, goodnight.

I would suggest that the holes in your argument are there already. As for inferences, they more or less follow the logic that you are putting forward.
I disagree that you responses have been clear as they have at times been contradictory and segued away from the original point.

As to the second part, I'm not sure you've been asked to condemn anyone. If you feel meanness and vindictiveness to a group is acceptable given the context of individual interactions then that is your right. Just as it would be anyone else's right to make their own judgment of that.

I don't see the contradiction with my post here. According to your definition as per your third sentence, trans people existing in society in the way they do deserve attack or 'pushback' / vindictiveness.

However, you have now said you don't have a problem with drag shows, which contradicts an earlier post where you said it was as offensive as ‘blackface’ is. So which is it?

I don't believe anyone ever said you support and want to attend minstrel shows - only that your original logic suggests that while you may find them offensive you accept they can be allowed to exist. I would respectfully suggest that your assumption is where misrepresentation has occurred.

But that is beside the point, it never has been, nor currently illegal for any person of any gender to use a gendered WC.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. If people decide to take vigilante action there is going to be a number of false accusations levelled at cis-women. I'm not sure how that can't be seen as 'negatively affected'.

Do you think it is acceptable that non-conforming women should receive 'problematic' attention merely for the way they appear? Does this not victim blaming again . . . ?

What you appear to be suggesting is that cis women who don't conform being humiliated (or worse) is a price you are willing to pay for the exclusion of a group where there is no evidence of harm or wrong-doing.

As to stereotypes, but you kind of have. You appear to be reducing trans women to just doing it because they like dresses, make up and coloured hair. Do you not think it is much more complicated than that? I'm not aware of where you have indicated this.

I'm confused here. I don't think I said 'only' GC people are 'cool' with others dressing up. I said that if GC people are cool with it, why are they also insulted by trans people dressing as women?

Though I would agree that 'we can never fully understand others and their inner thoughts'. You can only understand yourself and what you understand to be a woman in relation to yourself. As such a trans woman's understanding of what it is to be a woman is no less valid as a cis woman's.

I think you can try to speculate as to how trans people feel that are beyond stereotypes, you can even talk to them to find out more.

Well at first you said it was 'an absurd proposition' - but let's put that aside for now.
Your speculation was based on a set of stereotypical assumptions about men and how trans women may feel. I was pointing out it seemed rather shallow.

Do you not think that trans women have an equal risk of male violence than cis women?

Is that very different for someone stating that the choice of what someone wears, the potential negative consequences of which are the responsibility of that person?
2/2

As to the inference of 'victim blaming', you suggested that someone that makes a personal choice that could make them more vulnerable should take responsibility for that. 1/2

Screen shot of post by sbtaffy.bsky.social stating: Women are insulted by males dressing up as women, often in a gross caricature of femaleness - exaggerated and sexualised. Women is not a costume, unless it is in entertainment shows when it is for comic effect.

'grossly offensive' / 'insulted' perhaps you feel there is a difference. This post looks like you did suggest this. As to HRT, perhaps you meant something different when you meant 'drugs' that make you weaker? If so what did you mean?

Whether GIDs was bad a keeping records or not is not a good reason to cease a treatment. I'm assuming you are a fan of the Cass report, but this didn't not find any negative elements to the treatment. (not even accounting for all the positive studies that were conveniently shrugged off)

So just to be clear, you think that poor record keeping was actually a conspiracy to cover up a phalanx of people for whom the treatment 'didn't work'? Where are they then? Where are thousands of people who are suing the trust for using a treatment that didn't work?

I also note that you have now brought in children which till now you have not. I hope you are not trying to suggest that trans people are inherently dangerous to children because they get changed in a changing room just like everyone else?

However, if on the other hand you are just saying that trans women just being in the same public women's changing room where children may be present, then no, this is not sexual harassment under any statute.

As to the last sentence, again this is ambiguous choice of words. For a start you only state unauthorised 'adult' - you don't specify a gender. In that case one would say that indeed any adult (regardless) of gender that is in a space reserved for children could be contravening a right.

If you are just using it as a short hand for a public space like a changing room, loo etc, then no it isn't sexual harassment at all. If on the other hand, you are referring to a personal space that has been made specifically for you then it would depend on the circumstances.

The presence of a trans person in a female space is not sexual harassment - there is no law that states this. Now you did put in 'safe' which is a loose definition. I don't know whether that is on purpose to obfuscate or not, but I'm not aware what the legal definition of 'safe' is.