Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

[MochaSoul]

I'm not white. I have to direct nurses to my hands every time I have to have blood taken. Some argue and proceed to prick and miss a few times insisting that they are the champion blood takers before conceding that perhaps, I actually do know what I am talking about, from experience. Imagine that.

My ethnicity has never been listed as a reason and to be honest I have never concluded it's because I'm not White. We can see my veins in my arms, inner arm, fairly light brown skin etc, but they refuse to give any fucker blood...small, thin and deep are the words i've heard used to describe my veins on the inside of my arms. Yeah I know, take the fucking blood from the back of my hand please, like I said before

I'm fairly dark skinned. My ethnicity has never been mentioned let alone listed. But my experience is that, hand or arm, black nurses find them on their first go. White nurses it's very much more [repeatedly] miss than hit. It doesn't change with country either. Mrs Frank sigh of relief on sighting of a black nurse is one I know only too well both here and in Portugal (where I was raised).

 

[MochaSoul]

We usually learn from making mistakes. Most law and policy that you'll learn about as a health care worker will have been developed following a mistake (and often very serious systemic level fuck ups)

Fuck ups are hardly going to be prevented if some people are being dismissed as bigots as they speak up especially if those instances turn yet other people off the debates altogether.

 

[Red Cat]

Fuck ups are hardly going to be prevented if some people are being dismissed as bigots as they speak up especially if those instances turn yet other people off the debates altogether.

Mistakes in the NHS can't be prevented 100% of the time, and the idea that this or that shouldn't have happened takes us away from learning from what actually did happen.

I agree that mistakes are more likely to be repeated if people feel judged, dismissed or silenced.

 

[Athos]

Having a gender recognition certificate makes no difference to discrimination laws which are based on whether someone is perceived or known to be, or to have undertaken gender transition.

Self declaration would not affect this, the whole man could just fill in a form and demand to access womens spaces thing was a lie.

This is inaccurate. What the act actually says is the following:

'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.'

The significance of a Gender Recognition Certificate is that is evidence of such a process, such that the bearer becomes a member of the protected class i.e. it becomes impossible for the service provider to lawfully refuse them access except for the very limited excemptions. (In any event, many, including the Committee to which you refer, seek to abolish those protections; you've declined to say whether or not you favour their abolition.)

If obtaining a certificate becomes a simple matter of self-identification, it becomes much easier to get one (that's the point of the proposed change).

It follows that it becomes much easier for people to claim access to women's spaces; claims it would be unlawful to deny.

In principle, any man could fill in a form saying he identifies as a woman, get a certificate in the post, and walk into a communal female changing room (looking and dressing like a man). If challanged, he could produce the certificate, and it would be unlawful to deny him.

In reality, I think this is extremely unlikely not least of all because of the evidence from other countries.

But, you ought not to mislead people about the legal effect of what's proposed.

Also, it's dishonest to look at individual changes in isolation. It's clearly an incremental process, and the effect of the sum of the changes that many are calling for are far greater than the individual parts e.g. you've made no reference to what the impact would be if 'gender identity' rather than 'gender reassignment' became the protected characteristic (a change you favour).

 

[8ball]

I'm fairly dark skinned. My ethnicity has never been mentioned let alone listed. But my experience is that, hand or arm, black nurses find them on their first go. White nurses it's very much more [repeatedly] miss than hit. It doesn't change with country either. Mrs Frank sigh of relief on sighting of a black nurse is one I know only too well both here and in Portugal (where I was raised).

Never heard of that. When I'm getting cannulated I just tend to say "right ACF" which is always reliable, and has been done so many times the nerves are shot out, so I don't really feel it.

Would it be because white people are looking for the colour of the veins rather than feeling for them properly?

 

[smokedout]

This is inaccurate. What the act actually says is the following:

'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.'

The significance of a Gender Recognition Certificate is that is evidence of such a process, such that the bearer becomes a member of the protected class i.e. it becomes impossible for the service provider to refuse them access except for the very limited excemptions. (In any event, many, including the Committee to which you refer, seek to abolish those protections; you've declined to say whether or not you favour their abolition.)

If obtaining a certificate becomes a simple matter of self-identification, it becomes much easier to get one (that's the point of the proposed change).

It follows that it becomes much easier for people to claim access to women's spaces; claims it would be unlawful to deny.

In principle, any man could fill in a form saying he identifies as a woman, get a certificate in the post, and walk into a communal female changing room (looking and dressing like a man). If challanged, he could produce the certificate, and it would be unlawful to deny him.

In reality, I think this is extremely unlikely not least of all because of the evidence from other countries.

But, you ought not to mislead people about the legal effect of what's proposed.

Also, it's dishonest to look at individual changes in isolation. It's clearly an incremental process, and the effect of the sum of the changes that many are calling for are far greater than the individual parts e.g. you've made no reference to what the impact would be if 'gender identity' rather than 'gender reassignment' - a move you favour - became the protected characteristic.

Give it a fucking rest. You are wrong, A Gender Recognition Certificate has no bearing on discrimination laws. You do not need to have one to file a claim of discrimination and in most cases it would be illegal to even ask if you had one. However there are limited exemptions which permit discrimination on the grounds of gender transition whether or not someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate, which includes women only services, as both Women's Aid and Rape Crisis explain in their evidence to the Women's and Equalities Committee.

The committee recommended the exemption be lifted for people who had been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate under the 2004 act which requires someone to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, to have lived in their aquired gender for two years and usually to be undergoing medical transition. They did not comment on what should happen should self-certification become law. In any event the Government rejected this proposal as you well know.

And moving to gender identity rather than gender transition would have no bearing on women only spaces. Transwomen have the protections I outlined above. This move was recommended to stop discrimination against non-binary people, who would not necessarily be seen as women under the law, they would be non-binary, and who would also be subject to the exemptions I mentioned above. And yes I support this. I don't think a man who cross dresses at weekends, or a radical feminist who openly rejects the gender binary, should be sacked or evicted for their gender identity or lack of gender identity. Unfortunately the Government also rejected this proposal. I know you pretend that didn't happen but the committee themselves were quite clear what they thought:

The response regrettably rejects one of the Committee's main recommendations – that the protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 regarding trans people should be changed to "gender identity."

I'm not going to get into what other changes I do or do not support because there are so many possible permeations of any legal changes which were recommended by a cross party committee two years ago and in many cases rejected by the Government. I think the Gender Recognition Act is currently unfit for purpose and needs updating, I broadly support self-identification, and I think an open consultation, as limited as that is, is probably the best parliamentary solution right now. Unfortunately there is a small group of people, cheered on by you, who are fighting tooth and nail to stop that happening.

Now feel free to rant on and on obsessively. I have replied because these changes have been grossly misrepresented by you alongside others with a clear anti-trans political agenda. I will not be replying to any more demands from you on this subject.

 

[MochaSoul]

Never heard of that. When I'm getting cannulated I just tend to say "right ACF" which is always reliable, and has been done so many times the nerves are shot out, so I don't really feel it.

Would it be because white people are looking for the colour of the veins rather than feeling for them properly?

I have no idea. It's just something I've noticed over the years to the point of becoming extremely sensitive to the idea of getting blood drawn. Never asked them either but that's because it could well be that I've been extremely unlucky and why would I needlessly get in a nurses's bad books when I know I may have to face them again?

 

[Athos]

Give it a fucking rest. You are wrong, A Gender Recognition Certificate has no bearing on discrimination laws. You do not need to have one to file a claim of discrimination and in most cases it would be illegal to even ask if you had one. However there are limited exemptions which permit discrimination on the grounds of gender transition whether or not someone has a Gender Recognition Certificate, which includes women only services, as both Women's Aid and Rape Crisis explain in their evidence to the Women's and Equalities Committee.

The committee recommended the exemption be lifted for people who had been granted a Gender Recognition Certificate under the 2004 act which requires someone to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, to have lived in their aquired gender for two years and usually to be undergoing medical transition. They did not comment on what should happen should self-certification become law. In any event the Government rejected this proposal as you well know.

And moving to gender identity rather than gender transition would have no bearing on women only spaces. Transwomen have the protections I outlined above. This move was recommended to stop discrimination against non-binary people, who would not necessarily be seen as women under the law, they would be non-binary, and who would also be subject to the exemptions I mentioned above. And yes I support this. I don't think a man who cross dresses at weekends, or a radical feminist who openly rejects the gender binary, should be sacked or evicted for their gender identity or lack of gender identity. Unfortunately the Government also rejected this proposal. I know you pretend that didn't happen but the committee themselves were quite clear what they thought:

I'm not going to get into what other changes I do or do not support because there are so many possible permeations of any legal changes which were recommended by a cross party committee two years ago and in many cases rejected by the Government. I think the Gender Recognition Act is currently unfit for purpose and needs updating, I broadly support self-identification, and I think an open consultation, as limited as that is, is probably the best parliamentary solution right now. Unfortunately there is a small group of people, cheered on by you, who are fighting tooth and nail to stop that happening.

Now feel free to rant on and on obsessively. I have replied because these changes have been grossly misrepresented by you alongside others with a clear anti-trans political agenda. I will not be replying to any more demands from you on this subject.

I'm sorry but you have the law wrong on this (or you're being deliberately misreading). It's nonsense to suggest that a GRC has no significance to the discrimination legislation. It is one mechanism by which anyone can evidence the protected characteristic. Making it easier for anyone to get a certificate makes it easier for anyone (genuine or not) to claim those protections. (I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, but let's be truthful about it.)

There are a limited number of exemptions for now, but these are also under attack. Disingenuously, you won't confirm your own position on this aspect (and others). I suspect that's because you'd then be forced to concede the practical and legal consequences of the changes you and other TRAs are really aiming for.

Equally dishonest is your attempt to read the parts of the committee report in isolation (as you do with other proposed changes).

Again, you are wilfully misrepresenting the significance of one of the changes you admit to seeking - making 'gender identity' (as opposed to 'gender reassignment') the protected characteristic. It would make it practically impossible to distinguish between genuine trans women and men who would abuse the system for other sinister purposes. (As I've said, I don't think the latter is likely to amount to significant risk, but, again, let's be honest about what's being suggested.)

Your attempted smear of me is misplaced. I've not argued against changes to the GRA. I think it's unfit for purpose, and I'd welcome some well-thought-through changes to make trans people's lives easier (I'm in no way anti-trans, as you claim). However, I'd like that to be after an honest and open discussion, and in a way that accommodates women's rights, too.

Whereas, you seem keen to mislead or silence the discussion, and have clearly prioritised trans rights above all else, particularly the concerns of very many women.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I have no idea. It's just something I've noticed over the years to the point of becoming extremely sensitive to the idea of getting blood drawn. Never asked them either but that's because it could well be that I've been extremely unlucky and why would I needlessly get in a nurses's bad books when I know I may have to face them again?

Sounds like something that should be highlighted, tbh. I would think it's a problem that could be solved with a little bit of extra training.

 

[smokedout]

One final point on gender recognition certificates since the waters have been muddied again.

In a discrimination case brought under the Equalities Act, it would be necessary to prove evidence of gender transition and of course a gender recognition certificate could be part of that. Equally important however would be to prove whoever did the discriminating did so because they believed a person was undergoing gender transition. Otherwise no discrimination has taken place. So the only time a gender recognition certificate might be relevent is if someone was discriminated against on the basis of possessing a certificate and nothing else ie not presentation or anything they said. It is hard to imagine how this would ever happen, in almost all cases the person doing the discriminating would not know whether the individual had a gender recognition certificate - and if they asked (which would presume they suspected gender transition for some other reason) then the potential litigant would be under no legal obligation to tell them and asking in itself would be grounds for a discrimination case.

 

[Athos]

One final point on gender recognition certificates since the waters have been muddied again.

In a discrimination case brought under the Equalities Act, it would be necessary to prove evidence of gender transition and of course a gender recognition certificate could be part of that. Equally important however would be to prove whoever did the discriminating did so because they believed a person was undergoing gender transition. Otherwise no discrimination has taken place. So the only time a gender recognition certificate might be relevent is if someone was discriminated against on the basis of possessing a certificate and nothing else ie not presentation or anything they said. It is hard to imagine how this would ever happen, in almost all cases the person doing the discriminating would not know whether the individual had a gender recognition certificate - and if they asked (which would presume they suspected gender transition for some other reason) then the potential litigant would be under no legal obligation to tell them and asking in itself would be grounds for a discrimination case.

It's the Equality Act 2010, not they Equalities Act. And you clearly don't understand how it operates.

Though I note you now say "a discrimination case brought under the Equalities Act, it would be necessary to prove evidence of gender transition and of course a gender recognition certificate could be part of that", which isn't what you claimed before: "A Gender Recognition Certificate has no bearing on discrimination laws".

As things stand, if someone who was born male and looks like a man* (e.g. dressed in stereotypically male clothes and with a full beard) tried to enter a women's changing room, a service provider wouldn't be prosecuted for refusing him, because the 'discrimination' wouldn't be based on the protected characteristic i.e. gender reassignment - it'd be a reasonable exemption for sex discrimination.

Once the same man can get a certificate on nothing more than his say so, then, if he produced it when challanged, any continued or subsequent refusal of access could only be deemed based on the protected characteristic i.e. the reassignment, because that'd be the only difference between him and any other woman in the eyes of the law, and I'd be surprised if a court decided that the exemptions would apply then (and service providers are unlikely to take the risk). (And that's quite apart from the fact that many want to do away with them, including yourself I suspect, but you won't give a straight answer on that.)

It's fundamentally dishonest to keep suggesting that a move towards issuing GRCs on the basis of self-identification couldn't impact on the application of the Equality Act 2010 (even putting aside the fact it's clearly intended by many as a towards 'gender identity' (rather than 'gender reassignment') becoming the protected characteristic).

Again, none of which is necessarily a compelling reason not to make these changes, since they would have the advantage of making life easier for trans people. But we need to be honest about what such changes might mean, and have a sensible discussion, rather than lie to women, and forcing the changes on them.

* In case it's not obvious, I'm talking about a man with sinister intentions, not a trans woman.

 

[smokedout]

It's the Equality Act 2010, not they Equalities Act. And you clearly don't understand how it operates.

Though I note you now say "a discrimination case brought under the Equalities Act, it would be necessary to prove evidence of gender transition and of course a gender recognition certificate could be part of that", which isn't what you claimed before: "A Gender Recognition Certificate has no bearing on discrimination laws".

As things stand, if someone who was born male and looks like a man* (e.g. dressed in stereotypically male clothes and with a full beard) tried to enter a women's changing room, a service provider wouldn't be prosecuted for refusing him, because the 'discrimination' wouldn't be based on the protected characteristic i.e. gender reassignment - it'd be a reasonable exemption for sex discrimination.

Once the same man can get a certificate on nothing more than his say so, then, if he produced it when challanged, any continued or subsequent refusal of access could only be deemed based on the protected characteristic i.e. the reassignment, because that'd be the only difference between him and any other woman in the eyes of the law, and I'd be surprised if a court decided that the exemptions would apply then (quite apart from the fact that many want to do away with them, including yourself I suspect, but you won't give a straight answer on that).

It's fundamentally dishonest to keep suggesting that a move towards issuing GRCs on the basis of self-identification couldn't impact on the application of the Equality Act 2010 (even putting aside the fact it's clearly intended by many as a towards 'gender identity' (rather than 'gender reassignment') becoming the protected characteristic).

Again, none of which is necessarily a compelling reason not to make these changes, since they would have the advantage of making life easier for trans people. But we need to be honest about what such changes might mean, and have a sensible discussion, rather than lie to women, and forcing the changes on them.

* In case it's not obvious, I'm talking about a man with sinister intentions, not a trans woman.

Given that the exemptiom can be, and currently is used to discriminate against actual transwomen then why on earth do think it wouldn't apply in this case?

 

[Athos]

Given that the exemptiom can be, and currently is used to discriminate against actual transwomen then why on earth do think it wouldn't apply in this case?

First, because I'm not aware that the exemption is routinely used against trans women in scenarios analogous to the one I mentioned. Secondly, because the legislature would have signalled a clear change in the direction of the law towards self- identification (by allowing GRCs on that basis), which would tend to suggest that the courts would interpret the exemptions more strictly - they would need to be even more compelling than it is at present. And, thirdly, because I suspect that it'd only be a matter of time before the protections provided by those exemptions are also eroded. They're already under attack. Where do you stand on that? Should the exemptions stay or go?

Also, I'd edited before you quoted, to point out that service providers would be less likely to take the risk of following a course of action which might subsequently be declared unlawful when confronted with a valid GRC.

 

[Sea Star]

Just for reference there's info on how to apply for a gender recongition certificate at: Obtaining Your Gender Recognition Certificate – Gender Identity Research & Education Society

It is hugely bureacratic, especially given all the other things that need to happen like changing your name and then details with banks, tax, benefits etc. It is also potentially quite expensive. Would it really have been such a disaster to make this a bit easier?

fairer, transparent, accountable and affordable too would be nice and without the actually homophobic spousal veto that hardly anyone wants to talk about that keeps some us as second class citizens at the whim of an abusive ex spouse. Heaven forbid that someone ends up in a "gay" marriage without their consent, because obviously being gay is awful/ sarcasm

The absurdity of course is that they accept us as our gender when it comes to something like justifying the homophobia of the spousal veto but then require a special committee to sit and (sometimes arbitrarily) decide if we conform enough to the gender binary norms that we can have the rights and protections that come with being one gender and not somewhere in between.

I'll be fucked if I play that game just so a bunch of cis people can decide if I meet their standard of what a woman is. And I can't believe that so many people on the left expect me to play that game too.

 

[butchersapron]

fairer, transparent, accountable and affordable too would be nice and without the actually homophobic spousal veto that hardly anyone wants to talk about that keeps some us as second class citizens at the whim of an abusive ex spouse. Heaven forbid that someone ends up in a "gay" marriage without their consent, because obviously being gay is awful/ sarcasm

The absurdity of course is that they accept us as our gender when it comes to something like justifying the homophobia of the spousal veto but then require a special committee to sit and (sometimes arbitrarily) decide if we conform enough to the gender binary norms that we can have the rights and protections that come with being one gender and not somewhere in between.

I'll be fucked if I play that game just so a bunch of cis people can decide if I meet their standard of what a woman is. And I can't believe that so many people on the left expect me to play that game too.

I was flicking through this book Keywords by Ian Parker yesterday. He suggests that rejecting the term cis is akin to racism. He suggests it's most like anti-semitism. He then goes on to explain that CIS people are what's behind the ongoing donbass stuff. He goes on to call israel a -cis-state.

To who is this a term of use?

 

[Athos]

Heaven forbid that someone ends up in a "gay" marriage without their consent, because obviously being gay is awful/ sarcasm

As I'm sure you know, it can be distressing to be labelled as something you don't consder yourself to be. A straight woman might not want to be effectivly labelled a lesbian by the state, just as a trans woman might not want to be labelled a man. Those positions don't imply there's anthing wrong with being gay or a man, though.

 

[bimble]

He suggests it's most like anti-semitism. He then goes on to explain that CIS people are what's behind the ongoing donbass stuff. He goes on to call israel a -cis-state.

Sounds like maybe the author has lost it a bit, in his enthusiasm?

 

[MochaSoul]

To who is this a term of use?

The more I read explanations of "cis" the less convinced I am *especially* as I see it hurled at people as a term of abuse or just before the abuse comes. I also feel myself becoming inured to accusations of transphobia and/or TERFdom as I notice the frequency with which non acceptance of a woman/man's claim to be man/woman is conflated with not caring/being against trans people's human rights.

That one seems conspiraloon but such ideas usually sell well.

 

[Red Cat]

I was flicking through this book Keywords by Ian Parker yesterday. He suggests that rejecting the term cis is akin to racism. He suggests it's most like anti-semitism. He then goes on to explain that CIS people are what's behind the ongoing donbass stuff. He goes on to call israel a -cis-state.

To who is this a term of use?

Looks like he's doing some Lacanian fucking about with words thing.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

It appears some gender critical feminists are quite happy to accept a theory underpinned by gender essentialism as long as it gives them a chance to smear transwomen as male perverts.

I don't think you understand what is meant by 'essentialist'.

 

[8ball]

I don't think you understand what is meant by 'essentialist'.

The standard definition seems to work fine in that quote you posted..

 

[Miranda Yardley]

Can you give an example of one trans activist organisation, or any high profile trans-activist, claiming that lesbians who don't want to sleep with transwomen who've retained their penis are transphobic?

Sure, this is high-profile transgender activist Roz Kaveney:

So, in the end, my substantive point is this - the cotton ceiling exists and it's an issue for all trans people, women, men and non-binary. It's a matter of transpobia, including internalized transphobia. Given the fact that access to surgery or even HRT is already in the US, and may become in the UK, an economic issue and quite often a racial one too.

To pretend the cotton ceiling does not exist is to deny an important component in transphobia. To pretend that it is only a problem for lesbian trans women is to breach solidarity, to give hostages stupidly to the likes of the horrid GallusMag who is already ranting about it.

In a later piece, he makes this staggeringly dreadful argument:

How would you feel about a woman who said she would only sleep with women of her own race or religion?

Of course, the Cotton Ceiling is linked to autogynephilia.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

The standard definition seems to work fine in that quote you posted..

Not really.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not really.

go on then, i'll bite.

how would you say the standard definition, below, falls short in this instance?


oh: i'm assuming you're not on about nonjurors

 

[Teaboy]

I'd never encountered the theory of Autogynephilia before this thread, personally to me it has the appalling stench of 70's (I know it is an 80's theory) frontier psychiatry. I'd be really cautious of anyone hanging their hat on it as a plausible theory. All very dodgy.

 

[8ball]

I'd never encountered the theory of Autogynephilia before this thread, personally to me it has the appalling stench of 70's (I know it is an 80's theory) frontier psychiatry. I'd be really cautious of anyone hanging their hat on it as a plausible theory. All very dodgy.

It certainly looks at a first glance like circular-logic based bollocks used as a crutch to justify bigotry.

 

[Pickman's model]

It certainly looks at a first glance like circular-logic based bollocks used as a crutch to justify bigotry.

not sure it's much better at second or third glance

 

[elbows]

In a later piece, he makes this staggeringly dreadful argument

Roz wasnt referred to as 'he' when she appeared on After Dark in 1988, but its already fairly clear that misgendering them is part of your own stance and politics on these issues.

I think you are a disgrace and a shit gatekeeper.

 

[Miranda Yardley]

go on then, i'll bite.

how would you say the standard definition, below, falls short in this instance?
that
View attachment 124589
oh: i'm assuming you're not on about nonjurors

The OP was (essentially) arguing that the two-type typology suggests an authenticity for HSTS over AGPTS, and the concept of the AGPTS invalidates the 'transgender lesbian' on a similarly essentialist basis.

On authenticity: HSTS and AGPTS have equally invalid claims to being women, as both are males subject to male socialisation. That a 'woman' is an adult human female is not essentialist, it just is how we define one of the two sex classes our species exhibits. It is not essentialist to suggest someone with a female reproductive system is female, but it is essentialist to suggest that someone with a female reproductive system has particular personality traits or dispositions. The key point to take from Blanchard's typology (which builds on ideas that have been around for a long time, see for example Hirschfeld's 1918 examination of automonosexualism in cross-dressing males) is that the population of transsexuals (as he originally defined the typology, but would apply equally to transgender) falls into two general groups: homosexual and non-homosexual. This observation often gets lost in the noise.

Regarding the point the OP makes about femininity, we can assess the observation that HSTS would tend to be more feminine than AGPTS in the context of the HSTS being a manifestation of homosexual male sexuality and AGPTS being a manifestation of heterosexual male sexuality. Again, the argument being made is not essentialist as a particular type of behaviour is not being imputed on males generally, rather we are saying 'males who are *sexual exhibit the following traits...'.

To suggest this was essentialist would be like (for example) saying 'it is essentialist for heterosexual men to be sexually and romantically attracted to women' which is clearly nonsense: it would be essentialist to suggest the general case that 'men are attracted to women', see what I am getting at?

Likewise, it is not essentialist to say 'lesbians are females who are sexually and romantically attracted to other females', it's just a defining characteristic of what it is to be a homosexual female. An essentialist counterpart would be to suggest 'all lesbians are masculine women with buzzcuts who wear khaki and smoke cigars', the imputed trait is not part of the defining characteristic.

I hope this is of help!

 

[Miranda Yardley]

It certainly looks at a first glance like circular-logic based bollocks used as a crutch to justify bigotry.

Can you please explain what you mean, what 'bigotry' is being excused?