In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten the OU has other similar cases in progress.

I like very much how many legal professionals they approached for comment in that article. What the professionals said seemed very on point and not at all evasive or disingenuous. People are paying attention to these legal rulings, and it is going to trickle down.
The days of bullying people because you think it makes you a virtuous person to bully someone with unfashionable views are truely numbered now. I wonder who the virtue signallers will pick on next?

It will be interesting to see if the OU now settles the in progress legal cases, or are they up for a bunch more bad publiclity and payouts. Each case has to be judged on its own merits, but the days of "burn the gender critical witch" seem to be at the beginning of the end. Jo, Maya, Rachel and the rest are heroines for standing up for the rights of all of us. Does anyone know when Jo's legal remedies are decided please? I hope she takes them to the cleaners.

After listening to two days of Roz's tribunal live I have very high hopes for that too. The ERCC witnesses were mostly shambolic automata doing the best they could to parrot the party line. That organisation is in serious trouble, not just from how I expect the result to go, but the repercussions following from the result.

And it is always predicated on the absolute binary sex based belief that women should have no needs, no feelings, no equality, and should do nothing but serve the interests of men or suffer punishment, and that men have no responsibilities other than to do exactly what they want. Mostly to women.

No, that's not a civil rights movement, however it likes to identify.

I mean, break it down.

GC position - we expect reciprocity of care, inclusion, consideration, and require answers that work equally for everyone.

GI position - no reciprocation, just give and shut up because you're not an equal in this, and answers that work for other people are hate and genocide.

It's not that fantastically well balanced really. And it doesn't stand up in law. Because however cross the lobby gets, other people do have rights too.

Yes, it's about deception, as evidenced by Mermaids' submission to the consultation on 'Sex by deception'.

Their claim is it's not deception if one has a trans identity, and they want to make it impossible for anyone to even question that identity.

DadJoke has at least done us the favour of very pointedly showing why this isn't a civil rights movement.

This isn't a group demanding a set of rights others enjoy that they lack.

It's a group demanding a special right to secrecy and lies, and the ability to enforce secrecy and lies, and compel people who know the truth to not say it.

It’s not about toilets. The derailing is so tired and obvious.

Gay rights would certainly have been harder if the challenge was "permit gay marriage without outing gay people"...

Why do transgender people have the special right to not be ‘outed’, i.e. having to declare their sex? What is the reason for this taboo that does not apply to other people?

@theilltemperedclavecinist for this policy to be enforced you would need to know who was transgender and who was not. How would you enforce this without outing transgender people?

I answered your question. It is not proportionate for all the reasons I gave, so likely to be unlawful discrimination. And of course, like all women, most trans women want to use women’s loos.

If you want to ban transgender people from specific loos, you have to know who they are. How would HR do this? You know the transgender people who gave outed themselves, but not others, and are suspicious of GNC people, but how will you make sure?

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1859129/does-gender-critical-university-professors-tribunal-victory-mean-employers

What is clear from recent employment tribunals is that it is not acceptable to harass or discriminate against people who state sex is a biological reality and that women need the protection of single sex spaces.

Telling women that we must allow biological males into our prisons, rape crisis centres, changing rooms and toilets silences women's voices.

This hurts precisely because Victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse KNOW that their abusers relied on being able to silence their victims.

Believing your own eyes (it's a man in front of me) is not discriminating. Speaking the truth (it's a man in front of me) is not discriminating.

It doesn't matter how much a trans woman thinks they feel like a woman - they have no right to be in places women feel vulnerable (toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres) or in places which celebrate women's achievements (in sport, business, or the arts)

I am not a lawyer.

Understatement of the year.

Yes, sorry, we should stop talking about toilets.

It is discrimination. That's the only thing we agree on. My question is : Is it lawful discrimination under the Equalities act exemptions that allows for discrimination where it is necessary and proportionate?

It's not discrimination. The question isn't whether everyone is treated the same but whether anyone is disadvantaged. Everyone has toilets. No-one has to be outed or humiliated or afraid. Religious people can stick to their rules.

The legitimate/proportionate test doesn't apply.

(I like the idea of whoever toilets because they'd be useful if you need to help an opposite sex person like a child or adult with disabilities.)

It’s interesting to observe which topics get subjected to obvious derails.

This thread is (or was) about a lesbian being bullied, harassed and discriminated against by her colleagues and her employer.

Because those colleagues claim to believe that biological sex isn’t real or is unimportant, and on that basis they consider themselves to be righteous and morally superior and wholly justified in bullying and harassing a colleague.

It’s also about how many instances there have been of women who don’t tell lies about biological reality being bullied and harassed by colleagues who are prepared to lie about biological reality.

If dadjoke wants to post endless screeds about toilets, it would be courteous of dadjoke to start their own thread, instead of derailing the OP’s thread. .

@RufustheFactualReindeer Dad assuming that among a large group of people there are no trans people who would be happy to use a three space option for me is very telling.

dad

missed an asterisk, that’s probably Freudian as well 🤔

Of course the idea that *dad thinks this is a reasonable accommodation explains a lot

lechiffre

well exactly

no loo for the female and 3 for males

@RufustheFactualReindeer
It is a bit lose lose for the females isn't it?
There is no scenario that a woman get to use a female single sex space without males having right of entry.

@DadJoke

I worked for a law firm until recently. It had men, women and gender neutral toilets. I think it was pretty well understood that "men" and "women" would mean male and female, but admittedly no one tested it to my knowledge. It wasn't a strict rule set out anywhere. And lots of people used the gender neutral toilets - maybe some were trans but mostly for convenience if they were passing or seated closest to those.

Frankly, surely most trans people don't want to attract attention or make colleagues uncomfortable? Obviously, there are those like Eddie Izzard who do things like this and use women's facilities to make a point in a leather miniskirt in circumstances in which everyone knows you have a penis and love part of your life as a man and regard it as a bit of a game. Most other trans people surely want to live their lives without drama. I'd hate to be using a space in which my Muslim colleagues hovered outside the door because they wouldn't want to use the facilities at the same time. Personally, I'd use the one in which no one cared what sex I was.

The alternative is that gender critical people who object to transgender people using the loos which match their gender have the option of using the loo which matches their sex or the unisex one, which I think is a reasonable accomodation

wait…I’m confused (again)

so female person, objects to a transwoman using the ladies loo (which matches the transwomans gender) has the choice of using the one that matches her sex…female or the unisex, both of which contain males….how is that a reasonable accommodation?

Oh dear! I better tell my employer that they are breaking DadJoke's law.

Seriously, your reductio ad absurdum arguments are weaker every time you present them.

As always, the MRA perspective completely disregards the existence of females with trans identities. It is always always about what males want and what males can get, from females. It is so illuminating. Bright light.