When Does Lockdown End?

Status
Not open for further replies.
But you shouldn't seek to denigrate others because they can conceive of conceptual ideas that require more than one line to contextualise.
Of course I can..it is a free country.You use 50 words when 10 will do and always find room to add some patronising insult.
 
Sponsored Links
I repeat, a gammon has a choice about which complexion they display, they simply have to remain cool and calm, but they choose not to.

But some people CHOOSE to identify as a different sex to the one they were born as. Can we now discriminate against them in your twisted, make it up to fit your non-argument logic.?
 
Sponsored Links
Bobby loves to gather sesquipedalian words, in order to foster his superiority.
There's not much point in gathering them if you don't use them.
I'm afraid that your suspicion for my motives is awry. Plus if you don't use it, you lose it.
I was taught at an early age that the more of your mother tongue you are familiar with, the easier it is to learn a foreign language, due, no doubt, to etymology.
 
Last edited:
But some people CHOOSE to identify as a different sex to the one they were born as. Can we now discriminate against them in your twisted, make it up to fit your non-argument logic.?
You have demonstrated numerous times that you will offend all and sundry at every opportunity. So the law, social niceties of what is allowed, what isn't, or what is considered poor manners has never deterred you from such behaviour.

You are confusing transgender/transsexual with transvestite. There's a difference.
But to educate you about what is allowed and what isn't.
Discrimination against transgender people is not allowed. Transgender is defined as:
Transgender people are those whose gender identity or expression doesn’t conform to the sex they were assigned at birth. The relevant legislation uses the term transsexual.​
They didn't have a choice in which gender they were assigned at birth. So your assumption is incorrect.

You are allowed to discriminate against transvestites. But as you are in no position to differentiate the difference, I suggest you feel your way very carefully. :ROFLMAO:
 
[Sound of very large can of worms opening]
How so?
If employers can insist on a dress code while at work, and one of their employees refuses to adopt that dress code, disciplinary proceedings can legally be enforced.
All of this is, as far as I am aware, the current legislation that deals with such issues.
 
gammon as a description of a person - is clearly a derogatory potentially racist slur. Make an argument that isn't based on someone's colour/skin tone
I meant in a legal sense, it is not illegal to discriminate against someone for their transvestite behaviour.
recent Gender Recognition Act 2004 and UK case law. Cross-dressers, conversely, can expect little legal protection through statutory provision and are adversely affected by the outcomes of case law on dress codes at work.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09589230701563028?journalCode=cjgs20

'tis complete boll*x today. Note the date of the article: 2007

transvestite is a sub-category of transgender with regard to protected characteristics found in for example the Equalities Act 2010
 
Last edited:
gammon as a description of a person - is clearly a derogatory potentially racist slur. Make an argument that isn't based on someone's colour/skin tone
I didn't say it wasn't a derogatory slur, I said it isn't a racist slur.
I agree it is under discussion, I doubt it will ever become a racist slur. Currently, it isn't a racist slur.
You can't make an argument based on anything other than the flushed complexion of far right people when they become agitated because that is the origin of the terminology.
Similarly, you couldn't make an argument based on ginger haired people, on anything but the colour of their hair, because that is the whole crux of the slur. But a slur against ginger haired people is not a racist slur.


'tis complete boll*x today. Note the date of the article: 2007
transvestite is a sub-category of transgender with regard to protected characteristics found in for example the Equalities Act 2010
You may be right, I haven't researched it, and I haven't kept up to date on the legality.
I do know that the original legislation did not cover crossdressing. When did the legislation extend to cover crossdressing?

The discrimination only applies in employment and vocational training (or that was the original legislation) so the employer - dress code example might still stand.
Thus discrimination on dress code or because the employee is a practising transvestite would be down to individual case judgement.

And all of this is by the by, because a cross dresser does not change sex/gender. Therefore ReganAndCarter's comment is still invalid.
 
Last edited:
I didn't say it wasn't a derogatory slur, I said it isn't a racist slur.
I agree it is under discussion, I doubt it will ever become a racist slur. Currently, it isn't a racist slur.
You can't make an argument based on anything other than the flushed complexion of far right people when they become agitated because that is the origin of the terminology.
Similarly, you couldn't make an argument based on ginger haired people, on anything but the colour of their hair, because that is the whole crux of the slur. But a slur against ginger haired people is not a racist slur.
make an argument about their argument, not about their colour etc.. Doesn't matter if they are white, pink, orange or green - you should attack the argument not the person. Otherwise you lose.
You may be right, I haven't researched it, and I haven't kept up to date on the legality.
I do know that the original legislation did not cover crossdressing. When did the legislation extend to cover crossdressing?
maybe you could take a guess at when the Equality Act 2010 became law ;)
The discrimination only applies in employment and vocational training (or that was the original legislation) so the employer - dress code example might still stand.
Thus discrimination on dress code or because the employee is a practising transvestite would be down to individual case judgement.

And all of this is by the by, because a cross dresser does not change sex/gender. Therefore ReganAndCarter's comment is still invalid.

Absolutely not correct

Under the Equality Act you are protected from discrimination:
  • when you are in the workplace
  • when you use public services like healthcare (for example, visiting your doctor or local hospital) or education (for example, at your school or college)
  • when you use businesses and other organisations that provide services and goods (like shops, restaurants, and cinemas)
  • when you use transport
  • when you join a club or association (for example, your local tennis club)
  • when you have contact with public bodies like your local council or government departments
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top