"Reforming the GRA will not change anything because the EA will remain the same"

I have screenshot gibberty's claim to be responsible for a significant chunk of equality law.

If this is true, it is terrible, frightening and a shocking governmental oversight.

The intention is to make the language and interpretation so unclear that women's spaces are destroyed.

Also agree. The "class of humans formerly known as women" will still exist, will still be subject to violence from the "class of human formerly known as men" and, for safety and dignity, will still need their own spaces and services.

Gibberty knows this perfectly well. And is intent on preventing women from having these spaces and services. Bare naked male supremacy - no amount of language obscurantism will hide this.

Neither of which posts I reported because I want everyone to see what transactivism is. I totally understand why you want to silence people who point it out.

Another YY.

The intention is to make the language and interpretation so unclear that women's spaces are destroyed.

And yes exactly. The intention is crystal clear.

Neither of which posts I reported because I want everyone to see what transactivism is. I totally understand why you want to silence people who point it out.

YY.

have never said that men should not be challenged but you are trying to exclude women

No one here is trying to exclude women.

The intention is clear though.

The intention is to make the language and interpretation so unclear that women's spaces are destroyed.

Gibberty
The material you posted is about excluding men, or put more precisely, about when discrimination is permitted against the protected characteristic of sex. What people are wanting to do on this thread is to discriminate against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

This is legitimate in certain circumstances. This is the example given in the equality act notes:

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7/5/3

Imagine you run a group counselling session that is provided for female victims of sexual assault. If someone who is obviously a transwomen joins, you could exclude her under the EA exceptions if it is for a legitimate aim and is proportional.

But alternatively someone who might be a transwomen joins but you are not sure. Therefore you would like to ask her for her GRC before excluding her. The problem is not that you cannot ask for a GRC, you can. The problem is that if you cannot tell they are trans it would be unlikely they would fit into the EX exceptions.

This reads like you are saying that whether a trans woman can be excluded from female spaces depends on whether or not they pass
Surely that isn't right?

It's entirely possible that you know little about the rape crisis centre case, specifically thatvthey helped the trans-identified male after an assault, for which they were repaid with a decade long legal battle and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs. Nor do you know perhaps that every other rape crisis centre would have taken on the trans-identified male as a counsellor so that this case looks more and more vindictive when you read up on it. Perhaps do that.

In fact as a contributor of 'a significant chunk of equality law' perhaps you would be well advised to do a little more research all round.

I have no idea what you mean by 'women'. I wish to keep men out.

Vancouver Rape Crisis centre is not anti-trans, but thank you for confirming that you find 'odious' a group of women who have the best interests of traumatised women as their priority.

Thus speaks transactivism.

I have never said that men should not be challenged but you are trying to exclude women

VRR is odious for it's anti-trans attitude

Neither of which posts I reported because I want everyone to see what transactivism is. I totally understand why you want to silence people who point it out.

I think the new low came when you called a rape crisis centre 'odious' and said it was right that women had 'zero' reason to challenge a naked man in the changing room.

Neither of us has any idea what you mean by 'woman' so you have no reason to keep using the word. It does not serve as a tool of communication.

New low here. Now women like me who support trans people are being called men. Post reported

"The same person responsible for a significant chunk of equality law thinks it is 'right' that there is 'zero' we can do about a naked man in your daughter's changing room. Let that sink in."
But your objection is to certain women, not to men

"A man who is responsible for a significant chunk of equality law thinks a rape crisis centre is 'odious'. Let that sink in."

I am a woman

The same person responsible for a significant chunk of equality law thinks it is 'right' that there is 'zero' we can do about a naked man in your daughter's changing room. Let that sink in.

A man who is responsible for a significant chunk of equality law thinks a rape crisis centre is 'odious'. Let that sink in.

"gibberty It might be a good idea to acquaint yourself with what the law actually says before coming on here and spouting a load of made-up nonsense. There are many situations where people with GRCs can be excluded from single-sex services for their acquired legal sex."

Believe me I do. I am responsible for a significant chunk of equality law.

The material you posted is about excluding men, or put more precisely, about when discrimination is permitted against the protected characteristic of sex. What people are wanting to do on this thread is to discriminate against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. That's a whole different kettle of fish. The example I gave is entirely accurate.

There are watertight exemptions in EA 2010 which are (nearly) watertight. For example, the Church of England did a pretty strong job of getting exemptions into EA 2010. What you posted isn't necessarily wrong (although it is weaker than often claimed) but it quite simply isn't relevant.

Creating a legal situation where a woman cannot challenge a man is male rights activism.

Did Gibberty ever explain the odious comment or did they realize that there was no way to sell that no matter how hard they tried?