JKR offers to fund any nurse or female patient legal fees

So can we make a list of who is getting sued so far using Jo's money?

Park run, Amnesty international, Girl guides, The NHS

And suing all of them is a good thing for benefitting society and everyday people?

Idea- if she has so much money why not, instead of trying to take money from the NHS which could harm everyone, she donates to the NHS so they can build additional toilets? For example more Unisex toilets in addition to men's and women's which trans people could use? Lots of European countries commonly use unisex facilities.

This is also cartoon-villain territory at this point. "I'll sue the NHS and the world's largest human rights org to spite those trans people and I don't care if people who need them get harmed!".

If anyone is wondering btw what Amesty Int. do:
www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/

If you're so sure you're right, the NHS has nothing to fear from "one deranged billionaire", do they?

Haha I wasn't missing that beauty 😂

Still can't believe you managed to bag that username! 🏅

Or they could, y'know, adhere to the law and avoid getting sued...

And stamp all over someone's sense of grammatical superiority? Why would you want to do that? What if it's all they are clinging onto in an increasingly unsafe, hostile, reality-based society?

Why? Why would you want to be so cruel??

Same twisted "legal" arguments. Same condescending tone.

Yeah it does sound like him

I did idly muse whether @KindViper was the fox botherer earlier on!

Oh yes. I post to counter misinformation rather than with any hope those who spread it will stop.

But of course this is because I do them the honour of assuming they are intelligent enough to be deliberately misrepresentating the law.

It's always possible they are actually just dumb, but I prefer not to think that of others.

It is hijacked, but I see that slightly as a positive - the more they share their confusion and inanities and the more it is corrected and the actual reality shown - the more that is picked up by search engines and AI - and as they are starting to set opinion it will start to influence that...

the real irony will come when they do it so much that AI engines will hit peak and become gender critical - at that point hopefully whenever someone tries to use AI to produce pro-trans material there will start to be a GC bias 😀

@FlirtsWithRhinos and @nicepotoftea
Thanks for taking the time to spell all that out so clearly! (I couldn't be bothered, having One Of Those Days). It's obviously been said before ad nauseum for all our reader's benefit, and no doubt it will need to be spelled out again, and so therefore we will continue to do so.

It won't, however, be read at all by those who are not interested in facts or the truth. But, that's ok. Disingenuous scrambling of legal phrasing to suit what one wishes the law to say/mean does not, of course, change the law one iota.

So, to everyone reading this who thinks that their interpretation of the law is somehow superior to the actual law, I say, fine, bring a suit to court and we'll all see then how brilliant your "argument " is.

I have no doubts.

Continually repeating their opinion will not make it correct. If we agreed with them, we’d all be wrong.
There is no point in debating settled facts.
It’s not as if their aggressive stance will convince us otherwise.

Trans’women’ are men. Born that way and will die that way.
Trans people can’t change their sex.

Oh dear - I wondered why this thread had suddenly got so many new posts.

Even a simple thread about something positive has been hijacked and the purpose of applauding JKR lost in the usually provocative posts to take up time that could be spent on proactive and advancing discussion.

They aren't doing it to maybe reconsider. They just thinking how long can we string out these whatabouterries to make another FWR on no use to anyone that those getting a laugh out of the derail.

You are Jolyon Maugham and I claim my £5
Oh and you're going to lose btw.
(I am not JK Rowling)

It is clear from the SC ruling that any exclusion of a trans person from single sex services has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

And now picking up on this bit of sophistry....let's unpick what this attempt to mislead is actually based on.

The general rule is that single sex anything is discriminatory and not ok.

The exception to this is that in a situation where the needs of or risks faced by the sexes are so different that trying to meet both with the same provision would disadvantage one sex versus the other to the degree it may become discriminatory against that sex to only offer mixed provision.

In this case the provider is exempted from the general rule that bans single sex anything because the single sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. And trans peope are simply included in this like everyone else.

To be clear, trans people are not by this exemption singled out for special treatment, they are simply covered by the same single sex rules as everyone else, which the SC confirmed refer to biological sex.

Finally, there is a further consideration that was noted by the SC and so reflected in the guidance, which is that it is theoretically conceivable that a trans person has been so successful in appearing as the opposite sex that their presence in a single sex space which aligns with their biological sex might undermine the legitimate aim for which that provision exists as legitimately exempt in the first place.

In that specific scenario, it might be proportionate that the provider has to exclude them in order to continue to meet their legitimate aim.

Critically,

(1) although the bad faith TRA argument is to take the last point as a standalone exemption, it is not a separate consideration. It requires there to be an existing legitimate need for single sex provision and the only basis on which a potential exclusion of the trans person - effectively discriminating on the PC of gender reassignment - was being allowed is if it is also in service of that same aim. It is not a standalone decision, it's a secondary one in support of an already determined proportionate aim to exclude the oppodite sex.

(2) it's allowing on a case by case basis, for trans people of the biological sex that aligns with a single sex provision to be excluded in addition to the opppsite sex. The baseline is a provision that the opposite sex is already fully and completely excluded from. It is not and never has been allowing for trans people to be included where others of their biological sex are not.

(3) The actual scenario envisioned by the SC was rape crisis or similar. It wasn't a suggestion that transmen woukd routinely be excluded from ladies toilets where the proportionate aims are typically safety, privacy and dignity rather than the suppprt of deeply violated and traumatised women.

It is clear from the SC ruling that any exclusion of a trans person from single sex services has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Yes. This would relate to e.g. exclusion of a trans identifying woman from a women's rape crisis support group because she had changed her appearance to such an extent that this caused distress to other users because they believed her to be a man. However, she still has a right to provision.

Blanket bans - which the GC ideological captives interpret the law as being - simply do not meet that test.

This is where you seem to be very confused. A single sex service cannot include both men and women because then it is mixed sex. It's not a question of whether anyone can be banned, it's a question of the material reality of what the service is. The provider may then be unlawfully discriminating against people who require a single sex service.

Asking a trans person to use a third toilet would be discrimination

No, because per J. Swift:

the absence of a trans-inclusive lavatory is not the same as no lavatory at all. Even assuming interference with article 8 rights the interference would be less significant than considered by courts so far. However, even if that analysis is wrong, the Claimants’ case still fails. Even if there is a relevant prohibition on provision by a service provider or an employer of a trans-inclusive lavatory, and a consequent interference with article 8 rights, that interference would be capable of being justified taking into account the rights and freedoms of
others.

and in the case of asking someone with a GRC

GRC is irrelevant to single sex provision in the Equality Act. A piece of paper cannot change anyone's sex, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Also, read the GRA. It's very clear that its impact is limited.

it is clearly illegal and against the recent HC ruling by judge Swift, were contrary to the EHRC CoP he ruled that alowing a trans woman to use the facilities that matches her gender would not be indirect discrimination against cis men.

You really do need to read what he actually said which was that the 'circumstances of the case would be decisive'. In practice it would of course be impossible to prevent any man from using the facilities because gender is a subjective concept, so the question would be whether lack of single sex provision discriminates against women.

a trans person does not break any laws by using facilities that matches their gender.

Not sure why anyone would provide gender based facilities, but it is true that it is not a criminal offence to use an opposite sex toilet. The law might be broken if somebody refused to leave an opposite sex toilet, or if a service provider did not make adequate single sex provision.

a bigot that harasses anyone in a in a single sex facility will quickly find themselves facing a judge for that harassment.

Saying 'I'm sorry, this is the ladies' has never been harassment. It's just the normal way of helping people to use the correct facility.

the CoP is facing a least 2 legal challenges..

Yes Jolyon Maugham is indeed raising funds on this basis. Many would question the ethics of this.

trans people are obviously going to use the facilities that match their gender presentation because it is too dangerous to do otherwise.

So you are just suggesting mixed sex services that anyone can use, but without the safety features of unisex provision. It's very unclear how this is less dangerous for anyone.

Howse? Australian, innit…

Well it is the school/university holidays…

Has anyone told KindViper that this wasn't a spelling mistake yet?

Since you can't even differentiate between male and female humans, and people's self image I really don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

Oh this is so tedious.

The lying. The handwringing. The oh-we-don't-understAAAaaaaaanding.

It is so so simple. And so so easy.

You want to make your provisions mixed sex, don't call it single sex. That is literally it.

All this stupid hand wringing and mud throwing is just to hide that very very simple solution.

The only actual problem here is that what you really want to do is call it single sex but make it actually mixed sex.

I have no idea why anyone wants to do this, but please, just be fucking honest and there's no problem at all! No one gets sued, no one gets angry, and no one has to feel like one woman is somehow the biggest danger on the planet because she won't lie about what makes someone female.

Sheeesh!

"I don't want damages because I was on a mixed ward, but I do want damages because one of the people in my single sex ward (regularly full of male visitors) was trans"

I assume that a case that did go to court would involve somebody who was NOT happy to put on a mixed sex ward and who had been told that their ward would be single sex.

Whether or not another patient identifies as trans (how would you know?) is irrelevant to their sex.

regularly full of male visitors

My experience is that visiting hours are limited.

https://www.uclh.nhs.uk/patients-and-visitors/inpatients-your-hospital-stay/you-arrive-hospital/mixed-sex-accommodation-and-privacy

One is managed as a mixed sex ward, the other is managed as a single sex ward.

Here is a link explaining one hosptial's policy on mixed sex wards and the things they do to protect patient privacy.

The hospitals have had years to get to grips with this, so I'm not sure what you think they wouldn't just obey the law and follow their own policies.

They are Schrodinger's wards: both heavily supervised and with male staff available; and also part of the NHS which is on its knees with no money for services, as described by the same busy poster.

Beginning to suspect our visitor has a lot of different tabs open on their computer 🤔