Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 92

Thread: Girlguiding "membership withdrawals"

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    398
    Thanked 402 Times in 260 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesam3 View Post
    The legal basis is that they are a private club, and are perfectly entitled to discriminate in terms of their membership however they damned well please.

    My understanding (which might be wrong) is that the Equality Act 2010 does not allow an Association (i.e. a private club) to allow all biological females to join whilst being more selective of biological males; it should either be for a single sex or both sexes. This is because the Act defines Sex (not gender) as a Protected Characteristic. Hence, GG is a single sex organisation. I think any other interpretation would need to be tested in the courts.


    Quote Originally Posted by bluesam3 View Post
    (Incidentally, there are a handful of such elite sports put there: non-Olympic sailing being probably the most obvious example).

    My point about sport was that say Women's Athletics relies on (I believe) a physiological definition of female. Sports are allowed to discriminate by sex where strength and stamina are an important factor. This is based on the assumption that the average (or elite) female has less strength than the average (or elite) male. Presumably, if you disagree with all forms of discrimination you are against Women's sport in general.

  2. #62
    GSL & AESL shiftypete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    12,169
    Thanks
    3,257
    Thanked 1,097 Times in 723 Posts
    But gender reassignment is a seperate protected characteristic in its own right
    Gender reassignment
    (1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

    So its against the law to not treat a trans girl as you would a girl born with female body parts so GGUK have no choice in admitting trans girls.
    Last edited by shiftypete; 01-10-2018 at 08:40 PM.

    Peter Andrews AESL of Headingley Pirates ESU, Group Scout Leader & Webmaster of Falkoner Scout Group
    www.falkonerscouts.org.uk

    Previous Scouting Roles
    2003 - 2013 ABSL
    2017-2018 AGSL

    Wike, North Leeds District Campsite - www.wikecampsite.org.uk
    www.leeds-solar.co.uk
    Please note all views expressed are my own and not those of any organisation I'm associated with

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to shiftypete For This Useful Post:

    SteveF (01-10-2018)

  4. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    I thought we were talking about crime perpetrated between trans-people and ultra-feminists driven by the debate we're discussing here, not homophobia against LGBTQ people more generally - Unless you can provide a source for those statistics? (I don't believe the stats are collected in a way that might allow us to draw useful conclusions...)
    I don't know where you got "ultra-feminists" from. I said "so-called feminists". That is: people who claim themselves to be feminists.

    (Also, since there are a heck of a lot more women/lesbians than there are trans-people. It stands to reason there will be more people at the radical feminist end of the debate. One might be forgiven for wondering what the percentages are in the context of the groups the claim to represent.)
    Yeah, that argument doesn't work, because the scaling is symmetric: you'd expect it to scale with number of potential perpetrators and number of potential victims.

    As far as percentages go: explicitly trans-exclusive "feminists" are positively mainstream with people like Germaine Greer actively supporting them, Cathy Brennan and the like pushing their bullshit through the courts, Janice Raymond's books still being mainstream feminist literature, and the like. TERFs are a significant percentage of self-described feminists (or at least politically active ones). Transwomen who want anything more than for people to get out of their way, there are essentially none.

    You said: All are wildly outnumbered by the number of so-called feminists who do exactly those things towards transwomen. when I suggested there were trans-activists calling for the murder of lesbians and feminist. If you need it explained why that in no way excuses extremism at the other end of this particular spectrum...
    I notice that you haven't actually provided an example of a single such person, despite all of your insistent demands for sources.

    I suspect it is not my argument which is intellectually dishonest.
    Your argument is nothing but whataboutism. It's the very epitome of intellectual dishonesty.


    The word I was thinking about was bigot. (noun: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.)
    Opposing bigotry isn't bigotry. Declining to accept trans-exclusionary bullshit as legitimate is no more bigoted as declining to accept sexist or racist bullshit as legitimate. Mostly because they're exactly the same thing. Trans-exclusionary feminism is just sexism by any other name. The literal core thesis is that the single defining feature of womanhood is having a vagina: precisely the racist garbage that actual feminists have spent the last century and a bit working against.

    [B]

    As I said, I have no opinion on this except to say, there seem to be valid concerns coming from both sides. Personally, I don't assume it's my place to decide who is or is not a moron (at least no outwardly) - unless it's really obvious... Even then, I often hesitate...

    As a gay chap, with gay and trans-gendered friends, who dips into and out of the LBGT/* world - and who grew up with the kind of casual homophobia unique to the 1980's...

    I'll take your opinions with a pinch of salt.

    It's really quite simple: if the core purpose of your ideology is to discriminate against people, it's probably a terrible ideology.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by khoomei View Post
    My understanding (which might be wrong) is that the Equality Act 2010 does not allow an Association (i.e. a private club) to allow all biological females to join whilst being more selective of biological males; it should either be for a single sex or both sexes. This is because the Act defines Sex (not gender) as a Protected Characteristic. Hence, GG is a single sex organisation. I think any other interpretation would need to be tested in the courts.
    The relevant clause is Schedule 16, paragraph 1(1): "An association does not contravene section 101(1) by restricting membership to persons who share a protected characteristic." (and paragraphs 1(2) and 1(3), which are the same, but for associates and guests).

    My point about sport was that say Women's Athletics relies on (I believe) a physiological definition of female. Sports are allowed to discriminate by sex where strength and stamina are an important factor. This is based on the assumption that the average (or elite) female has less strength than the average (or elite) male. Presumably, if you disagree with all forms of discrimination you are against Women's sport in general.
    I'm generally in support of increasingly integrating sports as much as possible, yes.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to bluesam3 For This Useful Post:

    ASLChris (02-10-2018)

  6. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,612
    Thanks
    1,284
    Thanked 990 Times in 724 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by bluesam3 View Post
    I don't know where you got "ultra-feminists" from. I said "so-called feminists". That is: people who claim themselves to be feminists.



    Yeah, that argument doesn't work, because the scaling is symmetric: you'd expect it to scale with number of potential perpetrators and number of potential victims.

    As far as percentages go: explicitly trans-exclusive "feminists" are positively mainstream with people like Germaine Greer actively supporting them, Cathy Brennan and the like pushing their bullshit through the courts, Janice Raymond's books still being mainstream feminist literature, and the like. TERFs are a significant percentage of self-described feminists (or at least politically active ones). Transwomen who want anything more than for people to get out of their way, there are essentially none.



    I notice that you haven't actually provided an example of a single such person, despite all of your insistent demands for sources.



    Your argument is nothing but whataboutism. It's the very epitome of intellectual dishonesty.




    Opposing bigotry isn't bigotry. Declining to accept trans-exclusionary bullshit as legitimate is no more bigoted as declining to accept sexist or racist bullshit as legitimate. Mostly because they're exactly the same thing. Trans-exclusionary feminism is just sexism by any other name. The literal core thesis is that the single defining feature of womanhood is having a vagina: precisely the racist garbage that actual feminists have spent the last century and a bit working against.



    It's really quite simple: if the core purpose of your ideology is to discriminate against people, it's probably a terrible ideology.
    Lots going on here.

    Happy to let you continue going off on tangents so you can use sources that don't actually contain anything germane to the topic at hand, and replace one type of bigotry with another because that matches your opinion on things. (Don't bother explaining why you think those sources were, it's not that I'm not interested, as I said, it's because - while I have opinions, I've decided not to take a position on this - your efforts will only help shore up your own opinions, not mine.)

    Its interesting given the focus of the topic, you think it's me doing the whataboutery... Because, it wasn't me who provided a link to a paper about women suicide bombers (written by Julie Rajan, not V. Rajan. Her middle initials are V. G. Your other link I couldn't read because Achiles Neto is Brazilian...) You're even banging on about racism and all the usual lazy tropes about vaginas. In the context of this topic, even LBGT comparisons aren't quite accurate - remind yourself what this thread is actually about.

    Bottom line is, I can see both sides and their concerns. You can't.

    We know what that's called, and you can't have a constructive debate with that kind of outlook.

    (This is exactly why I sit on the fence with this...)

  7. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Posts
    53
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 20 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Lots going on here.

    Happy to let you continue going off on tangents so you can use sources that don't actually contain anything germane to the topic at hand, and replace one type of bigotry with another because that matches your opinion on things. (Don't bother explaining why you think those sources were, it's not that I'm not interested, as I said, it's because - while I have opinions, I've decided not to take a position on this - your efforts will only help shore up your own opinions, not mine.)

    Its interesting given the focus of the topic, you think it's me doing the whataboutery... Because, it wasn't me who provided a link to a paper about women suicide bombers (written by Julie Rajan, not V. Rajan. Her middle initials are V. G. Your other link I couldn't read because Achiles Neto is Brazilian...) You're even banging on about racism and all the usual lazy tropes about vaginas. In the context of this topic, even LBGT comparisons aren't quite accurate - remind yourself what this thread is actually about.

    Bottom line is, I can see both sides and their concerns. You can't.

    We know what that's called, and you can't have a constructive debate with that kind of outlook.

    (This is exactly why I sit on the fence with this...)

    There aren't two sides to see. There are people who want to be able to discriminate against people for who they are, and there are people who want to stop them. It is literally exactly the same as any of the dozens of other times that's come up over the years. Note that not eone of those went in favour of the people who wanted to carry on discriminating, and in not one case are those defending discrimination viewed in any kind of a positive light. I also note that you still haven't provided any sources at all for any of your claims, despite your continual whining about such.

  8. #66
    Senior Member Matt Donnelly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Merseyside
    Posts
    1,069
    Thanks
    686
    Thanked 259 Times in 137 Posts
    I suggest you put your views to one side for a minute and reread some of your posts. You may find they're not conducive to an open dialogue about a complex and evolving issue.

    Sent from my D5503 using Tapatalk
    Scout Active Support Member & Webmaster
    Deep Sea Scouts National SASU


    Membership Data & Engagement Support Manager
    Merseyside County Scouts


    Webmaster
    St. Helens Scout District - 1st Whiston Scout Group - 1st Kirkby Scout Group


    Tawd Vale Active Support Unit
    Tawd Vale Scout Camp

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Matt Donnelly For This Useful Post:

    johnL (11-10-2018),shiftypete (04-10-2018)

  10. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    746
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 106 Times in 53 Posts
    As has been previously stated, you cant have an organisation that openly discriminates, and talks about Equality/diversity etc.
    Something somewhere will have to give/break

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Richard T For This Useful Post:

    PaulArthurs (04-10-2018)

  12. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,612
    Thanks
    1,284
    Thanked 990 Times in 724 Posts
    Just came across this via Twitter.

    https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/m...rans-ally-tips

    Drawing particular attention to points 14, 15 and 92... (There may be more, I skimmed it only.)

    Again, I can see both sides of this, but those points - in terms of the trans position - are exactly the same points the feminist side are positing.

  13. #69
    Senior Member Bushfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Huddersfield
    Posts
    15,283
    Thanks
    360
    Thanked 2,714 Times in 1,468 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Just came across this via Twitter.

    https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/m...rans-ally-tips

    Drawing particular attention to points 14, 15 and 92... (There may be more, I skimmed it only.)

    Again, I can see both sides of this, but those points - in terms of the trans position - are exactly the same points the feminist side are positing.


    I gave up. As far as I am concerned people are people.
    Ewan Scott

    It seems that there are a lot of Nawyecka Comanch around....





    Nawyecka Comanch'": "Means roundabout--man says he's going one way, means to go t'other" Ethan Edwards - The Searchers



    www.upperdearnevalleynavigators.org.uk

  14. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,612
    Thanks
    1,284
    Thanked 990 Times in 724 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Bushfella View Post
    I gave up. As far as I am concerned people are people.
    You're not allowed to give up, you have to have an opinion - take a side.

    It's the modern way - if you're not explicitly for something, you're implicitly against it. (Even if that means you end up being against other stuff that also makes sense...)


  15. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cambridge
    Posts
    28
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 13 Times in 7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pa_broon74 View Post
    Just came across this via Twitter.

    https://www.vice.com/en_nz/article/m...rans-ally-tips

    Drawing particular attention to points 14, 15 and 92... (There may be more, I skimmed it only.)

    Again, I can see both sides of this, but those points - in terms of the trans position - are exactly the same points the feminist side are positing.
    Not really. The points in the article are (implicitly) talking about self-id'ing LGBT (or queer, or trans, or whatever) people. The point being made is that if you don't identify as a member of a certain group, then don't go barging into their spaces without asking.

    On the other hand, the TERF position is that self-id'ing trans women should not be allowed access to women's spaces. The article isn't talking about policing people's identities - just that if you don't identify as a member of a certain marginalised group, then don't assume entry to their spaces.

  16. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    3,612
    Thanks
    1,284
    Thanked 990 Times in 724 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by hisdark View Post
    Not really. The points in the article are (implicitly) talking about self-id'ing LGBT (or queer, or trans, or whatever) people. The point being made is that if you don't identify as a member of a certain group, then don't go barging into their spaces without asking.

    On the other hand, the TERF position is that self-id'ing trans women should not be allowed access to women's spaces. The article isn't talking about policing people's identities - just that if you don't identify as a member of a certain marginalised group, then don't assume entry to their spaces.
    Ummm...

    So women who identify as women, don't count in this? Playing devil's advocate (again), if trans people are looking for parity, saying they should be able to have unfettered access to female spaces, but females should not be allowed access to trans space - is exactly what the article is saying, (among other things).

    What you've described above is not parity or equality. Indeed, the question then arises - what do trans people wish to achieve (apart from equality, recognition of their status etc) by having access to female only space?*

    Bearing in mind - that GG is only an example, we're also talking about women's refuges (for example), that also cater to a marginalised group...

    As a footnote and slight digression (but worth mentioning, maybe). In terms of people barging into spaces that are not their own... Gay bars. (Ha ha, in a Scout forum, it's a brave new world ) I remember back in the day, you'd never see straight men in a gay bar - never. Now though, because its all opened up and so much more acceptable, you get straight guys in - to the extent, where more often than not, there are more straight people than gay people. The reason? Gay bars have always been a haven for women who wanted to go out but not be constantly hit on by men, so historically, there have always been a lot of single straight women in gay bars. Unfortunately, single straight men caught on to this in the early noughties and began to visit in groups.

    At roughly the same time, (and I used to see this every single time I went out,) you also get straight couples in. The guys think their girlfriend isn't going to get eyed up because it's a gay bar (this behaviour is hilariously obvious - the female is totally fine, the guy looks exceedingly skittish and won't ever go to the toilet). So, what you get is, gay men hitting on the boyfriend, thinking his girlfriend is an 'ally' (there is a more colloquial term for ladies who like to accompany gay men to bars, possibly not suited to this forum...)

    The kicker here is, the majority of LBGT crime happens in or around gay bars because of the above situation - and gay bars have traditionally been a safe space for trans-folk, and women.

    I'm now trying to remember what my point was... Ummm, I think it has to do with me knowing what you mean when you mention safe spaces - but - things change, the world moves on... All that drivel I just typed - while it has intrinsic problems for the LGBT community and we had no way to stop it from happening, it has meant that we're now way more accepted and open than we've ever been - but there has been a cost. Trans-people can't (I don't believe) be too prescriptive about who they 'allow' into their spaces if they want to achieve the same ends.**



    * Perhaps trans-folk are worried their space will be infiltrated by TERF's... Which would be ironic, because the women who are concerned about this, do seem to be worried about their safe spaces being infiltrated by whatever the trans equivalent of a TERF is - and they do exist. (I'm not keen of the term TERF, it's bandied about far too much and used far too often against women who don't merit it - bearing in mind it stands for Trans exclusionary Radical Feminist. Are those ex-GG leaders (for example) really radical feminists?)

    ** Apologies for the verbosity. I'm not an activist, but I do have views on this, not for me or other adults - but for young LGBT people growing up into the atmosphere we're creating around these issues. It's one of the few things I have real experience of so feel somewhat strongly about.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to pa_broon74 For This Useful Post:

    ASLChris (15-10-2018)

  18. #73
    Medicationed BenOfThe12th's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Southamptonish
    Posts
    314
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 58 Times in 45 Posts

    ** Warning ** I like my humour Very DRY, same as my Martinis, so don't take anything personally..

  19. #74
    ESL and DESC ianw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    6,321
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 1,985 Times in 1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BenOfThe12th View Post
    And?

    Or are you saying you can't trust trans people because there might be a few bad apples? Because if so, that's an odd line to take for a scout leader.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44443135
    Ian Wilkins
    Farnham District Explorer Scout Commissioner

    Jambowlree - Worldwide Scout Ten Pin Bowling Competition
    All sections, all countries, runs December 2017 - May 2018
    http://www.jambowlree.org

  20. #75
    Medicationed BenOfThe12th's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Southamptonish
    Posts
    314
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 58 Times in 45 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ianw View Post
    And?

    Or are you saying you can't trust trans people because there might be a few bad apples? Because if so, that's an odd line to take for a scout leader.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-44443135
    Draw your own inference.

    ** Warning ** I like my humour Very DRY, same as my Martinis, so don't take anything personally..

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 20-05-2015, 05:02 PM
  2. [Wanted] Copy of "The Black Report" & "Advance Party Report"
    By BOBOMAN in forum Items For Sale or Wanted (Scouting Related Only)
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 31-08-2013, 08:20 AM
  3. Do you know of any "Celebrity" or "Famous" Scouters
    By Walsallwizard in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-09-2012, 07:35 AM
  4. BBC News ( video) "Scouts' Christmas post raises money"
    By Richard T in forum Scouting Talk
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 18-12-2011, 12:58 PM
  5. [Answered] Advice please - objection to "Don't Raise Our Rents" caused by religious policy
    By DuncanHill in forum UK Chief Commissioner Questions (CLOSED)
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25-03-2011, 09:34 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •