I don’t discriminate, but ….

Yes LemonJam I'm aware that homophobia targets same sex attraction and that the law protects gender critical views, that does not however stop some from making 'phobia' accusations when gender critical views are being discussed in relation to for example, the protection of same sex spaces.

There are numerous examples of posters feeling the need to state that they're not antisemitic when criticising the actions of the Israeli state, and not Hamas supporters when they comment on the plight of those in Gaza.

This IMO is not because they're discriminating, it's because they fear they may well be accused of doing so.

As a person who has had relationships with women the worst homophobia I have seen is from those justifying men in women's spaces.

Thankyou Cossy for your post. My feelings exactly. I live on the coast and the number of second homes round here is appalling when people are homeless for whatever reason!

MT62

That ok Cossy but what happens if I say I don’t want all these blokes coming on to our shores. Am a racist?
Are the whole of Piddington racist because they don’t want a migrant camp there?
It doesn’t bother me that they are black, brown, yellow or whatever but it’s their values that bother me they aren’t the same as ours & that is my only concern.

You cant seriously think the government or Border Control cant control or pick and choose whether its a 'bloke', female or child that arrives in the UK to make an asylum seeker claim?

Good to know though that the colour of asylum seekers' skin makes no difference. Just like the any other group of UK population a group of asylum seekers will be made up of a number of individuals who hold differing values and personalities.

Smileless2012

Yes LemonJam I'm aware that homophobia targets same sex attraction and that the law protects gender critical views, that does not however stop some from making 'phobia' accusations when gender critical views are being discussed in relation to for example, the protection of same sex spaces.

There are numerous examples of posters feeling the need to state that they're not antisemitic when criticising the actions of the Israeli state, and not Hamas supporters when they comment on the plight of those in Gaza.

This IMO is not because they're discriminating, it's because they fear they may well be accused of doing so.

Good. What I said was:

"UK law has determined sex is immutable and defines woman hood so protects gender critical views as a philosophical belief under equality legislation. Simultaneously the law prohibits homophobic and transphobic discrimination and harassment.

Therein lies a tension. You can fervently believe and have the right to do so that sex is immutable and defines womanhood. However at the same time transgender people have the right to identify their preferred gender and are also protected by law from discrimination and harassment and must be treated equally".

If you feel that the law protects gender critical views, that does not however stop some from making 'phobia' accusations when gender critical views are being discussed in relation to for example, the protection of same sex spaces I would suggest taking it up yourself with that person.

I have no problem with protecting same sex spaces. I also believe transgender women have the same rights as biological women and should not be discriminated against or harassed in that or any other context. Both can be true and both allowed for.

I would suggest you take the same approach with any posters discussing any issues in Gaza which I have not mentioned.

I do challenge it when it happens LemonJam. I'm simply saying that someone declaring they're not transphobic, homophobic or antisemitic isn't necessarily because they're not prepared to admit they are, it's because they're not and don't want to be accused of being so.

I thought I'd made that plain; perhaps not.

Lemonjam
I have no problem with protecting same sex spaces.
That’s almost clear, but I’ve heard TW saying the same thing whilst translating same sex as including them as women, which as males, they’re obviously not.

I also believe transgender women have the same rights as biological women and should not be discriminated against or harassed in that or any other context.

Both can be true and both allowed for.

Would you mind clarifying/exemplifying those last two statements?

What are the rights that transgender women should have, that they don’t currently have?

Do you feel that the transgender women’s rights you allude to should impact detrimentally on the rights of women?

NB I’m not demanding that you answer, as that’s likely to get a report, just asking for clarification of your statements, which you are equally not obliged to give.

There is a difference between saying 'I'm not racist, but I don't want people with brown skin living next door' and 'I'm not transphobic but I don't want men in women's spaces'.

The former is a clear contradiction - only a racist would care about their neighbour's skin colour. The latter means that the speaker is not afraid of transpeople or wants to discriminate against them, but is afraid of (or otherwise objects to) men using women's changing rooms or whatever - transgender or not. Those things are perfectly compatible.

Possibly Doodledog, but there is plenty of evidence of those who think saying you don’t want males in women’s spaces is transphobic even if you think it’s not the same (and actually I agree.)

Thank you Doodledog now why didn't I think of putting it like that .

I'm not racist, but I don't want people with brown skin living next door sounds racist to me,
but saying,
I'm not racist, but I'm concerned about shifting population numbers with all these migrants doesn't sound racist to me.

Yet, often people are wrongly accused of racism just by others wanting to read that into the tone of the comment, as in example 2.

He could start by addressing those houses in every county, up and down Britain, currently left empty.

Excellent post, Graphite. Thanks for the link, I often wonder whether empty houses are taken into account when talking about the 'housing crisis'.

Doodledog

There is a difference between saying 'I'm not racist, but I don't want people with brown skin living next door' and 'I'm not transphobic but I don't want men in women's spaces'.

The former is a clear contradiction - only a racist would care about their neighbour's skin colour. The latter means that the speaker is not afraid of transpeople or wants to discriminate against them, but is afraid of (or otherwise objects to) men using women's changing rooms or whatever - transgender or not. Those things are perfectly compatible.

Exactly- I agree Doodledog.

In my part of the country hundreds of houses have been built in villages with hundreds more planned. However. Most of these are very high priced and even the so called ‘affordable’ properties are beyond the needs of first time buyers. Also many people would never have the means to buy a house. What is needed is more new social housing at affordable rents.
As for the homeless community. Many will not accept offers of accommodation as they would not be allowed to drink or take drugs there . Therefore, accommodation to cater for those with addictions needs to be considered where help can be offered if possible.

Mollygo 16.54- I thought I was clear in my earlier post but I'll have another go- just for you 😊. If this post setting out my understanding of the law is still not sufficiently clear for you, I invite you to provide your own preferred form of words that would be clearer- I would read with interest not be offended.

My understanding is that the UK law has now determined sex is immutable and defines womanhood and protects gender critical views as a philosophical belief under equality legislation. There have also been landmark rulings on protecting safe spaces for women.

At the same time the law prohibits homophobic and transphobic discrimination and harassment.

So sex is immutable and defines womanhood. However at the same time transgender people have the right to identify their preferred gender and are also protected by law from discrimination and harassment and must be treated equally.

A transgender woman identifies as female, has a legal right to do so and can obtain a legal Gender Recognition Certificate. They can also update their names and gender markers on passports, driving licences and medical records also without a GRC.

The landmark court rulings established sex based legal definition under equality legislation refers to biological sex. So for example service providers and employers etc can lawfully treat 'woman' as biological sex for single sex exemptions, and woman only spaces.

At the same time, transgender individuals retain separate legal protections against direct or indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment".

I don't "allude' to the law as you suggest, I set out my understanding of it.

You ask *Do you feel that the transgender women’s rights you allude to should impact detrimentally on the rights of women?
NB I’m not demanding that you answer, as that’s likely to get a report, just asking for clarification of your statements, which you are equally not obliged to give*

My statements are my understanding of the law. The law is the law - so not for me to say whether the law should detrimentally impact on the rights of women or on the rights of transgender women. Both have legal protections.

In an ideal world men, women of all nationalities and transgender women and transgender men can live alongside each other, all with dignity and respect and not be harassed, victimised or discriminated against.

MT62

That ok Cossy but what happens if I say I don’t want all these blokes coming on to our shores. Am a racist?
Are the whole of Piddington racist because they don’t want a migrant camp there?
It doesn’t bother me that they are black, brown, yellow or whatever but it’s their values that bother me they aren’t the same as ours & that is my only concern.

You can say that, others will draw their own conclusions.

Personally, I don’t judge all men arriving on small boats as all being trouble making people simply because they “don’t share our values”, (not entirely sure what you actually mean by that?)

Four years ago myself and a good friend of mine decided to do a road trip, on our own, across parts of Turkey we hadn’t seen.

We were two white women in our sixties, never having driven in Turkey before, and not speaking the language.

We drove right up into the mountains and through villages, only spending one night in each place.

Were we a little nervous? Yes. Did we experience any issues? No, not even one, even though most of the places we stayed the night in were tiny B&B’s, mainly run by men. Turkish, Muslim men.

The places we stopped for lunch and “comfort” breaks were tiny little road cafes, full of Turkish men.

Their culture couldn’t be more different from ours, but we were treated with deference and respect in every single place we went.

Sometimes these feelings we have spring from fear, often that fear is unfounded.

Good and bad people exist in all cultures. In my experience, the good outway the bad by a large margin.

LemonJam

Mollygo 16.54- I thought I was clear in my earlier post but I'll have another go- just for you 😊. If this post setting out my understanding of the law is still not sufficiently clear for you, I invite you to provide your own preferred form of words that would be clearer- I would read with interest not be offended.

My understanding is that the UK law has now determined sex is immutable and defines womanhood and protects gender critical views as a philosophical belief under equality legislation. There have also been landmark rulings on protecting safe spaces for women.

At the same time the law prohibits homophobic and transphobic discrimination and harassment.

So sex is immutable and defines womanhood. However at the same time transgender people have the right to identify their preferred gender and are also protected by law from discrimination and harassment and must be treated equally.

A transgender woman identifies as female, has a legal right to do so and can obtain a legal Gender Recognition Certificate. They can also update their names and gender markers on passports, driving licences and medical records also without a GRC.

The landmark court rulings established sex based legal definition under equality legislation refers to biological sex. So for example service providers and employers etc can lawfully treat 'woman' as biological sex for single sex exemptions, and woman only spaces.

At the same time, transgender individuals retain separate legal protections against direct or indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation under the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment".

I don't "allude' to the law as you suggest, I set out my understanding of it.

You ask *Do you feel that the transgender women’s rights you allude to should impact detrimentally on the rights of women?
NB I’m not demanding that you answer, as that’s likely to get a report, just asking for clarification of your statements, which you are equally not obliged to give*

My statements are my understanding of the law. The law is the law - so not for me to say whether the law should detrimentally impact on the rights of women or on the rights of transgender women. Both have legal protections.

In an ideal world men, women of all nationalities and transgender women and transgender men can live alongside each other, all with dignity and respect and not be harassed, victimised or discriminated against.

Spot on! 👍👏👏👏

Galaxy

As a person who has had relationships with women the worst homophobia I have seen is from those justifying men in women's spaces.

There is no justification. IMHO, no one’s “rights” should override others safety.

Of course, those who actually do cause the majority of women’s safety issues are men who pretend to be transgender.

My daughters both feel the same about heterosexuals “infiltrating” (their words, not mine) lesbian gay clubs because it makes them feel unsafe.

Fallingstar

Rough sleepers usually self medicate with drugs or drink because most have mental health problems and have fallen through enormous cracks in our care system. For the past few decades huge cuts have been made to care for adults with mental health problems but have saved no money because rough sleepers often take up beds in the NHS or end up in our prisons, all of which costs money.
Caring for theses adults will free up goodness knows how many places in our prisons, because many inmates are mentally ill, so instead of early releases I think it would be wise to address this.

👏👏👏👏👏

Not all will be bad people, but if the government feels the need to hand out pamphlets to these people, on how it is wrong to have sex with underage people- clearly I find it a little disturbing to say the least.
In some cultures it is ok to marry girls as young as 10 years old, ((maybe they do need these pamphlets)
Clearly they will think it’s ok to do this in this country, (go with youngsters) & to Pester young females (I’ve seen it in Manchester).
It has nothing to do with skin colour.

MT62

Not all will be bad people, but if the government feels the need to hand out pamphlets to these people, on how it is wrong to have sex with underage people- clearly I find it a little disturbing to say the least.
In some cultures it is ok to marry girls as young as 10 years old, ((maybe they do need these pamphlets)
Clearly they will think it’s ok to do this in this country, (go with youngsters) & to Pester young females (I’ve seen it in Manchester).
It has nothing to do with skin colour.

I don’t really have an answer for you here, it is a concern.

However, please believe me when I say that there are plenty of our own home grown Brits who have sex with under age girls and yes, it’s wrong.

I’m assuming this is what is being referred to?

www.gov.uk/government/publications/understanding-behaviours-and-expectations-in-the-uk-a-guide-for-asylum-seekers

I’ve perused this info and frankly it’s a pity it’s not given to ALL men living in this country!

I might be saying this a little tongue in cheek, but if you read through it all, it’s not a bad thing for all men (& some women) to live by!

Nothing wrong with the leaflet- consent is something to also promote and emphasise in uk make population to cut down on misogyny and crimes against women.

MartavTaurus

A good post and an interesting one.

However, from my days of linguistics, I remember learning that the words that come after but and although carry more emphasis by virtue of their position in the sentence. I can't remember what it was called used this way, a something or other conjunctive, and its function is to make the latter statement the stronger and more remembered by the listener, who then sees it as a contradiction of the first statement, when it might not be.

A bit of a jumble here, I know, but just to say I would cut people some slack by second guessing the manner in which they express themselves.

The rest of the post is sound.

Yes, that’s what I think too.After all if you say something like ‘I used to like cats but after looking after one for a while I was badly scratched and now detest them…
Or ‘I’m not a meat hater but after seeing a slaughterhouse now I really am’.
I don’t believe that everyone is a racist who uses a ‘but’.
As MvT says, the rest of the post is sound.