For Women Scotland lose case

A reminder that Robin Moira White tried to argue that the Equality Act
doesn't apply to Stonewall in Allison Bailey's case.
The judge did not agree.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/603670b4d3bf7f0ab2f070b3/Ms_A_Bailey_-v-Stonewall_Equality_Limited___others_2202172_2020-_preliminary_judgment.pdf
I do not accept that Ms White’s point about whether Stonewall is in a position to commit a basic contravention of the Act against chambers for the purposes of s 111(7) comes anywhere near rendering the Claimant’s claim unarguable. Quite the reverse in fact. There is nothing in the Act to suggest there is some sort of threshold for this purpose: if there is a service provision relationship between Stonewall and Chambers (which is not in dispute) that would be caught by s 29 of the EA 2010 if Stonewall discriminated against Chambers and that suffices in my judgment.

All sorts of things can be seen in the Act if you want them to.

[quote OldCrone]Transsexual, transman and transwoman are not legally established terms and the meanings of them are unclear.

Transsexual is defined here under gender reassignment.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7[/quote]
Its rather circular isnt it?

^2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person^

Yes come on Robin, we await the mic drop moment, as Shadowy put it.

I agree, but what it actually says is 'a woman and not a transsexual person', which also excludes transmen for the reasons in my previous post.

I think it's just clumsily drafted, because the wording in the other similar example where the needs of female rape survivors are considered is specific in only referring to an MTF trans person.

It can't exclude most FTM trans people on the grounds of sex as they are legally female.

Transsexual, transman and transwoman are not legally established terms and the meanings of them are unclear.

Transsexual is defined here under gender reassignment.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

That's the problem when you read legislation WANTING it to say something it doesnt.

It seems you want the legislation to mean TW, with or without a GRC, are not excluded in the circumstances outlined as an example with regards to a female only rape counselling session. Most see both the wording of the EA2010 exception & the example given to be clear that female only counselling rape support group sessions can exclude even a TW with a GRC. Because the reasoning for the need for that exception is very clear & understood - rape survivors need to feel they can speak in a safe, female only space, about their experiences & research confirms that traumatised women would either not speak or self exclude from a setting that is mixed sex. I think if you had a genuine interest in the well-being & recovery of rape survivors & understood what trauma informed support meant, you'd understand that too. Most people understand where the need for that exception comes from, why it was included & how the wording explains both the terms & worked examples. But you say most people are wrong, are engaged in wishful thinking (despite the co-author of the act confirming most people's interpretation is correct).

But you wanting it to say & mean something else doesn't make it so. You clearly think your own interpretation trumps how others see & understand how the single sex the exceptions work & what their intent was. But you've failed to even give any coherent argument or explain what your idea of wording that does exclude males, irrespective of their 'inner gender' or a legal fiction enacted by piece of paper, to demonstrate just how wrong/inadequate/misleading the current wording & meanings in theEA2010 are.

So, I'm calling bullshit on this drip feed & failure to back up claims of everyone else being 'wrong' or intellectually inferior cos they can't reach the same contorted conclusions of someone with the clear motivation to erase any boundaries set in law for the protection of women's privacy, dignity & safety.

Can you actually back up your claims? Can you make your pretzel arguments convince anyone who agrees with Karen Monaghan's statement that man/woman/male/female means sex, which means biological sex, that you've cracked the code most other people don't see?

I highly doubt it, cos I think anyone who thinks they've cracked something few others 'get' and it's so extraordinary because it's so far removed from the author's own intent & confirmation of meaning, they'd be at least able to state their case clearly, mic drop fashion, to shut up all us ill-informed women.

These sorts of performative non-substance arguments remind me of the 'just because' juvenile reactions I've had from children (mine & others) because they can't back up their position. I'm sure FWS are scratching their heads in panic at this 'just because' non-argument & will be revising their assessment on the likely prospects of success 'cos Robin has the secret key that cracks the code they can't work out. 🤨

So the person has to be both a woman and not transsexual. This excludes all transsexual people and all people who are legally recognised as men.

A transman without a GRC is legally a woman, but is transsexual.

A transman with a GRC is legally a man, and is also transsexual.

Of course it also excludes all transwomen.

A transwoman without a GRC is legally a man and is transsexual.

A transwoman with a GRC is legally a woman but is transsexual. This is the group of people that the 'even if she has a GRC' clause relates to.

Am I missing something here?

Woman and man are defined in Equality Act 2010.
Transsexual, transman and transwoman are not legally established terms and the meanings of them are unclear.

Uncommonground Media May 2020
Dr Julia Long
'A Meaningful Transition?'
(extract)
"Language determines what is perceptible, thinkable, possible and knowable within a culture. Language develops to support and enable different ways of thinking, or is suppressed in order to discourage them. The speed and ease with which new terms are established determines how quickly new social realities become normal; ‘social distancing’ and ‘self-isolation’ are obvious current examples. The relationship between the words we use and the lives we live is, to borrow Andrea Dworkin’s phrase, an umbilical one.

This relationship is nowhere more obvious than in the phenomenon of ‘transgenderism,’ which has over the past decade or so introduced a dizzying and seemingly endless proliferation of patently absurd new terms and concepts: ‘gender identity’, ‘trans woman’, ‘non-binary’. Given that these terms are based on false premises and easily exposed as fictitious, it is strange that the British gender critical movement has shown very little willingness to reject wholesale the pernicious language of transgenderism" (continues)
uncommongroundmedia.com/a-meaningful-transition-julia-long/

There would be no need to say 'she or he' because a transman with a GRC is legally a man so is not eligible for the post because of not being a woman (in legal terms).

I expect we are going to be told no one can ever be excluded because non binary. Once you are non binary everyone becomes a comparator.

Also referring to the "transsexual person" as she, they clearly mean a male, or surely it would have been drafted as "she or he". Just as if they meant a biological female, it would have been "he" as per the rest of the explanatory notes.

A transman without a GRC is legally a woman, but is transsexual.

A transman with a GRC is legally a man, and is also transsexual.

Of course it also excludes all transwomen.

A transwoman without a GRC is legally a man and is transsexual.

A transwoman with a GRC is legally a woman but is transsexual. This is the group of people that the 'even if she has a GRC' clause relates to.

Am I missing something here?

Thank you all. Very interesting. But mostly wrong.

Go on, educate us then.

Wouldn't they be excluded because they are transsexual? It states 'not a transsexual person'.

There are a number of qualifiers to the sentence which should be taken together:

"A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person"

I disagree that there is a clear implication that female transsexuals who identify as 'trans men' are also excluded by the example given.

Wouldn't they be excluded because they are transsexual? It states 'not a transsexual person'. And a transman with a GRC is legally male, so would presumably also be excluded on the basis of not being a woman (in legal terms). It would have been better if the wording had been clearer as it is in the other example which talks about a male to female transsexual.

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

Here, it appears that both transmen and transwomen are excluded ('not a transsexual person'), but emphasises the exclusion of transwomen with GRCs (even if she has a GRC').

I disagree that there is a clear implication that female transsexuals who identify as 'trans men' are also excluded by the example given.

Many in this group specifically seek to identify out of the category 'woman'.
The transsexual person/s seeking to identify into the category 'woman' are all male sex.

What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive

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.

In this paragraph, it's clear that it's a male person being excluded, and it's acknowledged that some women might be distressed by the presence of such a person.

A counsellor working with victims of rape might have to be a woman and not a transsexual person, even if she has a Gender Recognition Certificate, in order to avoid causing them further distress.

Here, it appears that both transmen and transwomen are excluded ('not a transsexual person'), but emphasises the exclusion of transwomen with GRCs (even if she has a GRC'). My understanding uses the same logic as Kotatsu used above.

I cannot understand how this can be interpreted to include transwomen and exclude transmen. It's not that I want it to have any particular meaning, but I can't see how you can interpret it in the way you do, Robin.

Thank you all. Very interesting. But mostly wrong.

You can patronise all you like - but the mostly wrong bit? Which bit is the ‘mostly wrong’ which bit is the not the ‘mostly wrong’ bit. The science? The facts? The rationality? The humanity of womanhood?

The EA2010 also gives this example in the explanatory notes (para 740):
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.

I do wonder about those who are so motivated to deny female victims of sexual assault by male perpetrators access to single sex female space/ services.
Female victims of male sexual assault who identify as trans or non binary need to be able to access such single sex provision.

There are increasing numbers of young women who have detransitioned/ desisted describing sexual abusive behaviour within trans community. Usual demographics/dynamics of older men targetting girls and young women.

Ben's (GNC Centric) articles and interviews are important:
4thwavenow.com/2019/01/26/my-trans-youth-group-experience-with-morgan-page/

'Coercion & Abuse in the Gender ID Community | with ⚢ GNC-Centric ⚢'

Thank you all. Very interesting. But mostly wrong. That's the problem when you read legislation WANTING it to say something it doesnt. I back the Lady Wise analysis to survive at appeal. But time will tell.

Are you seriously arguing that the transsexual person to be excluded from female only rape counselling session is a female to male transsexual & not a male to female transsexual? That's your argument?

Sadly it seems so. Clearly no understanding that you can exclude based on sex under the single sex exemptions - TM share my sex so can’t be excluded. Would actually be quite funny if it wasn’t so insane. Such consideration not for the traumatised women needing such services.

Ironically - its actually a very transphobic argument - that TM should be excluded based on gender reassignment. Funny how it’s always the same group that should be prioritised. It’s always easy to see which group that is.

Is this the same person who made formal representations that a TW should take maternity leave - but not the mother?

The idea that the wording is so bad it could mean anything & it's all such a puzzling mystery kind of falls apart when the person who co-wrote it says what it means & it makes perfect sense to 99% of the population. Doesn't matter that some people really wish it didn't mean what it says it does, the meaning is clear & understood by 99% of the population.

Dancing on the head of a pin to create the illusion of confusion or widespread misunderstanding is more than a bit of a stretch.

f you read through other instances of where they refer to transsexual people, they always use 'she' for MtF and 'he' for FtM, so this also makes it unlikely that it is a transman who is being referred to here.

The EA2010 also gives this example in the explanatory notes (para 740):
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.

Yes it's completely consistent with the other exemptions. Thank you for this.

Why would the Equality Act, after having taken such pains to be inclusive to trans people on the basis of their gender and let biological males counsel rape victims, and not call a female to male person a woman, then misgender those FTM trans people? Thoughts?

Just to confirm then, as a computer scientist.

Robin is saying (WOMAN OR TRANSWOMAN) AND (NOT(FEMALE AND TRANSEXUAL)) === (WOMAN OR TRANSAWOMAN) AND (NOT (TRANSMAN)

but to my reading, the guidance means WOMAN AND (NOT (TRANSMAN OR TRANSWOMAN)

?