Men in women’s groups.

This!

To further expand on the previous post.

The Supreme Court's role is to interpret and uphold the law as it was passed at the time. So, on the question of whether "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex or certificated sex, they look at contemporaneous evidence. They look at what was said and written at the time.

They aren't going to survey every person who was a sitting MP in 2009/2010 and ask them what they intended. People can forget, people can change their minds. There are still around 30 serving Labour MPs and a couple of Lib Dems who were elected in 2005 or earlier and would have been involved in passing the Equality Act. I would guess that among their number are people who might argue today that they intended the word "sex" to include people of the opposite sex with a gender recognition certificate because that is the currently fashionable viewpoint, but intended no such thing at the time. Most of the MPs arguing most vociferously in favour of this viewpoint were not in parliament at the time, and some of them were in fact still at primary school. They cannot speak on behalf of a former parliament. And those former members of parliament no longer have any democratic legitimacy and do not get to clarify today what they meant by "sex" in 2010.

So all the Supreme Court has to go on when considering the question, "what the fuck did Parliament actually mean when they wrote this" is contemporanous records.

If the 2005 parliament were not clear enough that they intended "sex" to include "opposite sex with a piece of paper", that is not the Supreme Court's fault. The Supreme Court has made what in my opinion is the only logical interpretation of the law, and so that is now the law unless and until it is changed.

So you don’t feel that women should be allowed to have their own groups or clubs? Why not?

It can't be legally wrong. Once the Supreme Court has ruled on a matter of law, that is the law, and it can only be changed through democratic means. So it is correct to say that "sex" in the Equality Act means biological sex, by virtue of the fact that the Supreme Court said so. There is no such thing as the Supreme Court getting it wrong, because the fact that the Supreme Court said it makes it correct.

It doesn’t matter what any of us think. At this point the law is as the ruling in the Supreme court. If an individual or group of people believe that law to be unjust or unfair or wrong, it is for them to campaign to change the equality act. I can’t see a challenge to the echr working because the EA implements EU human rights legislation

I think it’s far more likely that it is widely understood that a piece of paper cannot change anyone’s sex when it comes to an interpretation of the word ‘sex’ in the Equality Act. We all know about Stonewall’ ambitions to get “ahead of the law”. So no, the SC ruling was not legally wrong.

We can't make law and policy based on whether people genuinely believe they are the opposite sex to the one they actually are or not.

Surely you understand that?

I believe we have lots of young men playing with their identity who will drop the whole thing after a few years.

Thanks.

it’s weird. In a way it’s kind of what doesn’t kill you only serves to make you stronger type thing.

I rarely get angry but I am very angry about my treatment by the police, and the way my legal rights are being pushed aside to make room for how men feel because they can’t be told no.

I was preparing a formal complaint at the weekend against the police, and the act of doing that has clarified all my thinking around this even more.

it’s against the law for men to go into single sex women’s spaces.

I would tell a man who did so in a group I was part of this.

and I would memorialise and keep a record that I had done so.

If he did it again I would report him to the police for harassment.

And as to the statement that don’t I feel it’s only semantics? No. It’s not.

And the “what about the men who have had their rights taken away?” No. They haven’t. They never should have been in the space in the first place. They still have all their rights as a transgender person. And if they don’t like the current state of the law, then they need to campaign for a change - that is a them problem, not a me problem.

The answer is never to break the law because that leads to no laws being able to be applied.

It is also a consent violation because I say no. And that makes anyone who defends it, in my personal opinion, a rape apologist.

I’m so sorry for what you went through, @Taztoy.

I hope everyone can see past the typing errors I made last night / early this morning. I was having a bad night and the drugs I take to assist weren’t working.

I wish I could just view this all as some kind of semantics and a thought experiment but to me it really matters.

I’m still chuckling at the idea that the law might have been wrongly applied in the past and that would upset me because of the poor men who were doing something they never should have been allowed to do in the first place.

I think we all know his agenda.

You’d think an agreeable, sensitive, empathic, nurturing, compassionate, emotionally expressive, understanding and cooperative male would be very respectful of women’s spaces, whether IRL or online, and careful to stay away from them, wouldn’t you?

Well, I would.

Well then the people who feel their “right” was taken away should take it up with the people who told them they had that right. They never had that right. Sane people told them this. They chose to go with the people who were urging them to do what they wanted to do. Women told everyone this was causing them distress and upset. Funny how they were ignored isn’t it.

It could also be because the head of the EHRC allowed influence from outside the organisation to shape guidance. Or just weak leadership.

This is a statement from David Isaac who was the previous chair 2016 until 2020. He was the chair of Stonewall from 2003-2012.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/blogs/leaving-more-resilient-ehrc?return-url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.equalityhumanrights.com%2Fsearch%3Fkeys%3DTransgender%2520EA2010%26sort_by%3Dsearch_api_relevance%26page%3D4

When you think about it, how much did this chairman contribute to Stonewall’s unique interpretation of the EA2010 as they wished it was and vice versa? The appointment of chair should not be allowed to bias the interpretation of the law, yet I cannot ignore the timing of his role and the change in direction at Stonewall, the May government and that the EHRC support of that interpretation.

I read a report on the enforcement of the EA 2017-2019 (published July 2019) that that the EHRC acknowledged that single sex provision was untested by law cases. Yet, remember, Stonewall was telling organisations what their interpretation of the law was. Stonewall even had barristers such as White advising them and I remember White belabouring what ‘proportionate to the means to achieve the legitimate aim’ of single sex provisions were.

Over and over we were told directly on MN by White that there was no way to exclude male people from female single sex provisions if they had a GRC or intended to because it wouldn’t survive the test of what was proportionate or not. This was White’s line even after the Allison Bailey case (which White was very much a part of).

Was Isaac just weak in leadership in this area? Was he being influenced by the May government? Was he influenced by Stonewall? Who knows. But I believe there was little leadership by the EHRC at the time on what were the options for organisations.

Might be Because the laws were wrong.

Might be Because the laws are no longer fit for purpose.

Times change. Laws change. They get clarified by judges or new goslstkin gets passed. That’s how the law works.

it doesn’t matter how the law used to be. It matters how it is now. And for right now, men can’t enter women’s single sex spaces.

And if men are upset about that that is unfortunate and they should campaign to change the law.

If the law was wrong why did the original EHRC code take an inclusive approach? The GRA says someone acquired sex become their sex, so if the EA was meant to be an exception why wasn’t this explicit?

If the clarification is legally wrong then I will accept that and campaign for a law change.

The issue is that the law has been clarified and men won’t accept it.

And no. I don’t find it hard to believe that the law was wrong at all. That’s intro to law 101.

And what if the clarification is legally wrong? Isn’t it hard to believe that since 2011 the government including EHRC believed the trans people with a GRC were their acquired sex under the EA?

Perhaps it does. But that is a them problem. Not a me problem.

I have never gone over the speed limit and for at least the last 10 years I have used the speed limiter function in my car set to the speed limit. I have never had a speeding ticket either from a gun or a fixed camera.

I have Spotify for music which I pay for every month and I have had that since 2010 ish and before that I had iTunes and Apple Music and I don’t download any music or films other than through legal services. I have bbc, itv, channels 4 and 5, Apple paid films and music and Amazon prime.

I have already said on the thread but perhaps you missed it. I am autistic. I do not break the law. Ever.

I didn’t say the law was semantics. I said the difference between a clarification and feeling like a right was taken away feels like semantics to the people affected

If this law is mere semantics, all laws are mere semantics and where does that leave us?

It leaves us with laws against murder. Or rape. Or drink driving. Or anything. If it is just semantics that stop individuals doing what they want to do.

And I say no. It is not mere semantics. It is the actual law.

You, of course, are free to hold a different opinion.

So you’ve never gone over the speed limit or downloaded music or a film?

You are perfectly entitled to see it as mere semantics. I don’t. I see it as the legal statement of the law.

It isn’t my problem that these men don’t like the clarification. I would advise them to campaign to attempt to change the law, as I would have done had the decision gone the other way.