Written statement at 2.30pm today: First Anniversary of the FWS v SM ruling

I think employers like the civil service are basically daring employees to sue to obtain their legal rights (as defined by the SC ruling). And they're not going to budge from their current outdated position until forced to by either such an employee lawsuit or the government actually making them obey the law.

For a mature democracy such as the UK, this flagrant flouting of the law is very unusual and a definite sign of decline in civic society/public life.

Thank you - those are really good points to include although quite honestly I just want to respond in huge red letters saying "FOLLOW THE FUCKING LAW YOU MUPPETS", hence still sitting on the response over the weekend. Maybe I could put that in as a footnote!

My tactic is to head them off at the pass/getting my retaliation in first by putting as many words like "marginalised", "vulnerable", "toxic debate" into my letter:

blah blah ...sure you share my concern for marginalised and vulnerable groups in society like the homeless or [.....], and would agree with me that because the transgender community quite rightly enjoy all the same rights as everyone else, it is inaccurate to say that they are either marginalised or vulnerable, and unfair? offensive? to those who truly are...

blah blah ... so important to take the heat out of the debate by avoiding claims based solely on feelings, and sticking instead to verifiable facts and what the law actually says...

This at least deprives them of their mindless go-to nonsense words, so if they want to be trite, they have to work a bit harder at it.

I think employers like the civil service are basically daring employees to sue to obtain their legal rights (as defined by the SC ruling). And they're not going to budge from their current outdated position until forced to by either such an employee lawsuit or the government actually making them obey the law.

For a mature democracy such as the UK, this flagrant flouting of the law is very unusual and a definite sign of decline in civic society/public life.

Thanks for the Sonia Sodha Times article, I didn't realise that they are STILL using the illegal, old "guidance." She's surely in breach of the law? They SC Judgment said to obey the law immediately, not fucking prevaricate endlessly and pretend it's all too hard and unfair.

FFS!

My tactic is to head them off at the pass/getting my retaliation in first by putting as many words like "marginalised", "vulnerable", "toxic debate" into my letter:

blah blah ...sure you share my concern for marginalised and vulnerable groups in society like the homeless or [.....], and would agree with me that because the transgender community quite rightly enjoy all the same rights as everyone else, it is inaccurate to say that they are either marginalised or vulnerable, and unfair? offensive? to those who truly are...

blah blah ... so important to take the heat out of the debate by avoiding claims based solely on feelings, and sticking instead to verifiable facts and what the law actually says...

This at least deprives them of their mindless go-to nonsense words, so if they want to be trite, they have to work a bit harder at it.

I used the basis of an email from Sex Matters to send to my MP to express my concerns that this keeps getting delayed. Got the standard trite response with the usual words of "marginalised", "vulnerable", "toxic debate" blah blah blah.

I'm sitting on my hands before I send my response as the initial draft was less than polite.

Thank you so much - combined with the wealth of information from other posters on here, I am hoping to put together a balanced response to my worse than useless MP. At the moment it reads:

Oh FFS, really!!!!

Apologies - I didn’t realise it was one of their older archive articles that you need to subscribe to. Try this:

archive.ph/No4ew

Thank you - do you know if there is there a way to get that without subscribing?

There are some useful statistics in here that refute the “marginalised, vulnerable” nonsense:

thecritic.co.uk/neither-marginalised-abused-nor-vulnerable/

I used the basis of an email from Sex Matters to send to my MP to express my concerns that this keeps getting delayed. Got the standard trite response with the usual words of "marginalised", "vulnerable", "toxic debate" blah blah blah.

I'm sitting on my hands before I send my response as the initial draft was less than polite.

I did wonder if it was because nobody likes me...

LOL I never understand that I regularly let a woman know her label is hanging out or that she has a smudge (discretely and with a smile). But I’m AuDHD.

I'd bet my house plenty of women knew but didn't want to risk their job, reputation or physical safety.

I once went out all day with a mascara smudge on my cheek. Everyone was too polite or shy or reserved or scared to tell me. I still had an obvious mascara smudge on my cheek!

Gives the lie to no-one can tell clearly someone could tell that 'Janey' was not female.

I know it's harsh to pick on an individual, even an anonymous one, but this makes no sense, does it? Some days, it's the not making sense that bothers me the most.....

Janey (a pseudonym) still nips into a ..... ladies’ loo. “I just have to get on with my life,” she says. ......She had one unpleasant incident when a service user challenged her. She was worried about her manager’s reaction, who didn’t know she was transgender, but she found her to be supportive.

How can both sentences be true, unless the manager has never met 'Janey'?