GLP v EHRC judgement - Thread 2

When society allows a falsehood such as changing a sex marker on a government identity document when there is no material reality as humans cannot change sex, I guess that if you only consider it through a philosophical lens, it could cease to be a ‘lie’.

If you married in the UK before equal marriage became law and have no GRC, which you told us on the previous thread is the case, you lied by omission. Before 2014 you were not legally eligible to marry a man, since you too are legally a man, an adult human male person.

because why care about that if you're male?

Some of us do have women in our lives that we care about. But I absolutely take your point. Far too many of us don't respect women as we should.

Many women have been saying for a long time that using any female language for a male person is harmful in the long run. Harmful to those male people for sure, but also very harmful collectively to female people.

Ultimately, people reduce it to respect, and when they do that they fail to understand that the respect only goes one way, and building 'experiences' for male people to then continue to acquire female language for themselves is not respectful towards female people in that respect scenario.

The commonality between JM's position and the poster on this thread really is about the hatred of women and girls saying 'no'. The blatant misogyny that comes from the comments made by male people (even those without transgender identities) towards women and girls who reject the very premise that no male person can change sex and that they are not female in any way, is always present. In what they say about those women and girls and their opinions about those women and girls.

I also think it is really important that we, as women, understand how deeply the 'lived experience' goes towards building this constructed, subjective reality. Of course, there will always be other women who will think that all this 'experience' means that maybe there is something there. That maybe a very few male people really are the female people they describe themselves as.

However, it is irrelevant that a very few male people understand their 'experience' as being 'female'. It simply isn't true unless someone considers it through the philosophical theories that support this being considered 'true'. It is impossible. And that really causes the whole thing to crumble so that must not be allowed to happen.

JM's perusal of Sarah Philimore has also been remarkable. I can imagine just how many women would be in his spotlight if the British Columbia hate speech laws were applicable here. As it is, Oger's threat the other day towards Mia Hughes that Mia should be careful lest she end up like Barry Neufield was concerning.

When Mary Ann Stephenson was interviewed by the women and equalities commission, a fair chunk of her answers related to the poor provision of disabled facilities, perhaps GLP could work with the EHCP and get on board with improving facilities in general?

Maybe he could campaign for better accessible facilities for disabled people? He seems to think their toilets are in the basements of venues, which isn’t very accessible.

It’s likely that Bridget Phillipson’s special education needs reforms will create ripe conditions for legal crowd funding campaigns, but I doubt the GLP would manage to raise even the smallest amount. GLP’s track record and JM’s extreme views aren’t going to appeal to those who aren’t ideologically addled.

So as the wheels continue to come off Jolyon's bus, what grift could he have in mind next? It needs to be something unlikely to win in court as the Generally Loses Project wouldn't be able to cope with actual winning as opposed to the transwinning they usually do.

I might be described as sex-realist. What slur have I adopted or invented ?
Or was that another lie... sorry, the first lie onepost has told?

An odd one to begin with for someone who has never lied.

Especially when someone who thinks that female = woman and says that a utopia would involve abolishing gender comes to tell us how bad we are for thinking that!

The dishonesty. Again. These threads have opened my eyes.

(Not getting into the blatant dismissal of sex being a significant risk factor for violence perpetrated by one sex to the other - because why care about that if you're male?)

Thanks @Brainworm.So clear and so simple isn’t it?

And yet the trantrums continue. Can one buy shares in popcorn? Asking for a friend.

1.People who identify as 'trans' certainly exist, Nobody would deny this. But they remain the sex that was determined at conception. Nobody can change sex

2.Boundaries and firm guidelines are quite often the best solution. They clear up confusion and provide clarity and differentiation when required; certainly when it comes to protecting the rights of all citizens. You cannot prioritise the supposed 'rights' of one group if they infringe on the rights of another group. I think Canada has maxxed out on its 'tolerant' and 'inclusive' identity at the expense of common sense.

3.'Remarkable is not always a positive descriptor. Many would dispute that enabling the state assisted suicide of people who are mentally unwell or depressed is remarkable in any positive sense. Plus, female people have rights too, and integrity. Countries such as Canada which are still trying to shake off their 'colonial' past are often most keen to display their overly libertarian values - in an attempt to show independence, or anti-establishment credentials............or something

It's more of the same TRA rubbish.

A 55-year-old man whose entire identity is based on hating his own sex, accuses women of being 'sex critical'.

As women keep pointing out, this ideology is based on, promoted by, and entirely obsessed with linguistics.

And hatred of women. The one is used to enact the other.

“Sex critical”? That’s a new one, or perhaps a sign of tiredness.

Or, as dear Wolfgang Pauli said, "That is not only not right; it is not even wrong".

Ages ago, Ernst Zundel was imprisoned and eventually deported from Canada for inciting hatred. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Z%C3%BCndel

My guess is prison could be the next logical place for Barry.

I can’t think of any amount of abuse, verbal, online, screaming in their ear with a megaphone, that you could heap on anyone, any group, any minority - anything at all - that would get an individual fined that sort of sum in a civilized country.

It’s quite outrageous, frankly.

Sex critical interpretations aren't law. The law is the only force that can render my life and family illegal. It cannot, not because I have lied. I have never lied. The law hasn't ever directly addressed my circumstances.

I have not falsified anything. My legal status was and remains aligned within the law.

I understand he's been very abusive to trans people in British Columbia. I would guess the judgement has very little to do with his beliefs and is resulting from his actions.

You want education? Infer is what a person works out from something; imply is what something demonstrates to a person. "Tranada" implies that Canada is deep down a trans rabbit hole. It doesn't infer anything

A quick ‘thread round up as to what we have established….

The interim guidelines were found to be lawful
JM / the GLP did the ‘single sex provision is for one sex only’ crew (aka the vast majority of the population) a solid, and has to pay £300k for doing so
He has resorted to grossly misrepresenting the law out of desperation. The jury is out as to whether this is because he has genuinely lost the plot or recognises that this is the only remaining option to push for male inclusion in female only spaces.

Meanwhile, TRAs continue to make up stories about why it’s legitimate for some, but not all males, to use provision designated for females only.

And, today, Brigette Phillipson said that access to single sex provision should determined by biological sex, that this has always been the law, and no provider should wait for the EHRC guidance before enforcing this!

Yes, it was.

Yet again @Keeptoiletssafe is the ultimate voice of sanity in this debate. We owe her a huge debt of gratitude.