The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

MrsGrey

You can be a parent without giving birth. So it probably wouldn't.

TheMadcapLaughs

"with child" can be very insulting to someone who isn`t "with child" but just a little portly............ ;whistle

We`ve all made this mistake...........................surely.................

IronHerb

The 'I'm Pregnamt' badges on the train certainly help avoid these errors

PrestonHammer

I'm probably going to get shot down for saying this but I don't get it. There are only 2 genders, you are either male or female. It doesn't matter that if you were born a man but feel you should be a woman and vice versa, you are still either a male or a female.

grey_til_I_dye

Preston

Apparently, for those affected, it is not that simple.

Doesn't seem to me to be wrong to listen to what transgender people have to say about their experiences, and how they would like to be treated.

MrsGrey

Gender isn't the same as sex.

(Is the argument about how these two words are being used. It's about distinguishing 'gender' ie identity - which can be formed from various influences and factors - from sex which is more or less biologically determined.)

Also, it has become clear that there aren't only 2 sexes. Look up 'intersex'. There are a number of different syndromes where sex is not binary (in the way it is commonly understood).

And of course, people can be born one and later change to another.

(I'm ready to be corrected by those who know more about it than me, but that is my understanding based on the reading I've done. Apologies if I've misstated it.)

MrsGrey

Preston, why would you get shot down?

You'd only get ''shot down'' if you expressed prejudiced or discriminatory views on the topic. ;hmm

NEoldiron

Should there not be a separate thread for this, as it's not really relevant to the UK soon to be out of the EU is it, unless I've missed a post connecting the two subjects.

grey_til_I_dye

NE

It's a spin-off, like happens in many of these kinds of threads. Don't think it really needs its own thread, as it is, imo, unlikely to 'run and run'.

PrestonHammer

Thinking about it, I shouldn't have put the first bit in. I will have a read up on trans genderism.

MrsGrey

If you like reading fiction, a novel called Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides won the Pulitzer Prize some years ago.

It is a very good read, not preachy or overly medical. Just quite an engrossing story about several generations of a family in the 1st half of the 20th century.

TheMadcapLaughs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-38827731

Whilst I have every sympathy with the human in this story, school is a cruel, wicked, unforgiving place if you are different in any way, but apart from the obvious financial benefits, possibly tens of thousands of pounds I assume, what "good" does suing the school do. Highlighting the schools short comings and agitating for a better more inclusive World are one thing, but suing leaves me cold. It is the blame culture and the automatic "right" to financial recompense that gets me. Cases like this are detrimental (in my view), rather than healing wounds and promoting understanding they achieve the exact opposite.

With view to the earlier discussion, and to save any doubt or confusion, why not "pregnant human" as the catch all phrase.

MrsGrey

Re the language thing, those of you who have suggested alternative inclusive terms...

I agree there could be other terms used rather than the selection offered by the Guidance.

But the point is (and it seems to be one all of us are accepting - or at least nobody has actually challenged it) that trying to choose language that is inclusive and not containing any explicit or implicit derogatory overtones is a good thing. So the actual term isn't really the issue, it seems to me.

For anybody who didn't read the booklet, there are also other categories covered, such as language to describe people with disabilities, learning difficulties etc. (Which are categories that seem to attract less scorn and ridicule from papers like the Mail and The Sun than do those associated with race and gender. Quelle surprise!)

OutcastLondoner

TheMadcapLaughs said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-38827731

what "good" does suing the school do.

Setting legal precedent.

TheMadcapLaughs

OutcastLondoner said:

TheMadcapLaughs said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-38827731

what "good" does suing the school do.

Setting legal precedent.

For future claims???

OutcastLondoner

TheMadcapLaughs said:

OutcastLondoner said:

TheMadcapLaughs said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-38827731

what "good" does suing the school do.

Setting legal precedent.

For future claims???

For how schools are legally allowed to treat children. To make clear what constitutes discrimination and is therefore illegal.

TheMadcapLaughs

But according to the article the laws are already in place, the school seems negligent in their interpretation of the law, and I can understand that the school should be held accountable for neglecting its responsibilities, but "suing" (IMO) is wrong. I think that if this is a test case and will be used to set a precedent for the benefit of future pupils then if "damages" are awarded in cases such as this then they should be nominally set at £1.00. That assumes then that the claimant is doing this for the benefit of future generations rather than personal financial gain. The thought of "gender chasers" out there and "genderlawyers4u" makes me a little uncomfortable.

MrsGrey

TheMadcapLaughs said:

But according to the article the laws are already in place, the school seems negligent in their interpretation of the law, and I can understand that the school should be held accountable for neglecting its responsibilities, but "suing" (IMO) is wrong.

But that's the point.

How do you know if a school has been negligent in their conforming with the law and fulfilling their responsibilities? Until the day they put you in charge of deciding ( ;wink ), a case has to be taken to court to test that.

Who will do that, unless a 'victim' steps forward.

TheMadcapLaughs

I`m not objecting to the case, I`m objecting to the possibility of large damages being paid. If it is made clear that the damages are set at £1.00 then great. I hate compensation culture. We are money obsessed and it is being seen as a cure all, I`m all for righting wrongs, it just seems to me that a few thousand pounds appears to soften the blow. That is wrong and doesn`t compute in my head.

MrsGrey

But in many cases (not necessarily this one, I don't know) the person/organisation found to be at fault has done something that has caused the victim financial losses. (eg, loss of earning, facing medical or other expenses and so on). Why shouldn't they be compensated? I have no problem with it myself.

Also, if there is no punitive impact on the offending organisations, they can just carry on ignoring the law. And if they get taken to court and lose, ah well. Never mind.

OutcastLondoner

Does it actually even say in the story that they're seeking compensation?

MrsGrey

Not in the article, no.

But I think under the 2010 Act Part 9 (Enforcement) the tribunals and courts are empowered to award compensation and damages (subject to various criteria and limits).

NEoldiron

Of all the reasons to remain in the EU none can compete with this reason to leave

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/question-time-woman-banana-is-straight-audience-member-brexit-vote-last-minute-eu-referendum-a7560781.html

How many more of them had a similar reason ;puzzled

IronHerb

None I would guess.

NEoldiron

Herb you could be right, it would of would've been cucumbers ;biggrin

Expat_Hammer

Freedom for the fruitsters ;lol

MrsGrey

That banana story (an utter lie, but promoted by Boris) is proof that (a) Boris is despicable and (b) we have had out own alternative facts long before the Trump administration.

PrestonHammer

The banana story is an old story, I remember that when I was in my teens.

MrsGrey

Astonishing how it lives on.

It has been debunked so many times, but some people still believe it. Even after Boris admitted he made it up.

NEoldiron

I think the point is being missed here. The point being that some voters were (insert whatever adjective you feel is appropriate) enough to decide the future of the UK on such trivial matters. ;angry