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.