Sacked doctor sues former employer for refusing to call trans-woman "she"

you said you didnt care about anyone being at risk of abuse or violence.

says a lot about you

A woman walking along a canal murdered - nothing to do with unisex bathrooms and you invoke her name to then follow a non sequitur statement on women getting attacked in Unisex toilets?

Says it all

How does this process work for a man to become trans without surgery, do you need to get some paperwork done and to show staff when looking to use toilets and/or changing rooms?

I assume they can't just walk in and when a complaint is made they tell the staff they are a trans women.

Surely this whole thing is very open to abuse by dangerous men who have more access to women and girls.

Men can go into changing rooms to stare and expose themselves to women and kids.

Men can go into a women's toilet and assault or rape, because while in the past people would be suspicious of men entering a women's toilet they now wouldn't be suspicious.

Rapists going into women's prisons.

It really seems open to abuse by predators who can get easier access to women and kids.

I've already told you what would convince me otherwise: reports of court cases or tribunal proceedings they have taken against businesses or services that accept their identity, but don't do it with what they regard as sufficient enthusiasm. Got any examples?

As for "not being backward about being forward" about their preferred pronouns, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who won't accept an apology; about people who are not now being misgendered, but are still kicking off about the fact that they once were. That was the scenario you pointed to in your post. I'm not saying such a thing never happens, but all the evidence suggests that it happens a lot less frequently than deliberate or persistent misgendering does. If you have any evidence that it does happen more frequently then, yes, I absolutely am open to it. But I can't really be influenced by evidence that you don't present.

The consequence for not using someone's preferred pronoun? If you don't know it's their preferred pronoun, there should be no consequence other than them correcting you. if you have previously been told but you forget, or it's a slip of the tongue, or whatever, a reminder is in order. If you know of their preferred pronoun but refuse to use it you are being extremely rude; this should attract the same consequences as deliberate rudeness generally attracts. If you're an employee being deliberately rude to your employer's clients in violation of your employer's express policy, you can expect the disciplinary consequences that would normally attend that kind of behaviour.

Sure you can think it, and I have no doubt in your own mind your opinion is correct. Outside of your opinion though, there doesn’t appear to be much evidence of large swathes of people who are bothered by others finding it acceptable for men to be accepted into designated women-only spaces.

That’s precisely why the examples when they are presented have to include an element of begging the question, or adding in an element of threat, in order to make their point - it’s not the unexpected presence of men in women’s spaces that bothers anyone, it’s the presumption that anyone doing so is doing so with ill-intent, which amounts to prejudice against people by assuming things about them without evidence.

It puts you in a catch 22 situation when you give out about people making sweeping generalisations about men that they’re somehow a threat by virtue of the fact that they are men, but you’re doing exactly the same thing in trying to make your arguments that ill-intent could be the only reasonable explanation for their behaviour.

You’re running into the same difficulty as anyone faces when they attempt to whip up prejudice against any group in society and then try to play the victim when people point out that they’re just fearmongering. Most people aren’t so unreasonable as to assume everyone but them is acting with ill-intent.

That’s exactly why it’s unexpected when it does happen that someone is caught for something like taking pictures of women and girls in the bathrooms or whatever, or is caught committing assault, etc, and it’s also why it would be unreasonable to expect that anyone using the bathroom should have to prove their sex, or in the case of being assessed by a medical practitioner, it’s not unreasonable to expect the medical practitioner to at least act like a medical practitioner, as opposed to acting like an evangelist preacher imposing their religious views or personal beliefs upon customers of the DWP.

Talk about talking out of the two sides of your mouth.

Irish people and others (and it aint just Irish people) should get over themselves, women and girls should share a changing room would someone with a mickie.

But fook me pink there would be uproar if the person with a mickie was referred to as a guy.

So it is only certain people you disagree with who should get over themselves.

No it isn't necessarily done because of a fear of violence.

It is done because of a fear of being labelled islamaphobic (a made up fooking word to prevent criticism of one of the worst ideologies in the world) or even worse racism.

If you want example of how dangerous it is then look up the history of the predominantly muslim grooming gangs operating in Britain over decades.

Every other religion is fair game, but islam ... no way.

A lot of the ones here very vocal about chrisitianity (particularly catholicism) are very quite about islam.

It is all or nothing lads.