To think this is a vote winner (though not election clincher) from Sunak?

[Lion400]

Thought this was an impressive and clear response to the question, from Rishi. I suppose Labour will likely win by a landslide, because many people don’t care enough about women’s rights. Because I do care very much about women’s rights, I may vote Conservative for the first time ever (cue outrage for Lion). Will I regret it? Possibly. But I’d regret voting for Labour (aka women’s rights removers), even more.

https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1757143443111841900

The opposition works by scrutinising government policy, not proposing their own

TheConservatives are not putting forward any policy for scrutiny. So there is nothing to oppose.

Sorry, but I didn't make how parliament works.

Well they will be proposing their own for the GE

And I’m looking for clarification because the statement below falls apart after a couple of questions no one can answer

Of course you have. You keep banging on a about labour being committed to single sex spaces and refusing to consider what they actually mean by that. It doesn't matter if you have 3 million reliable sources saying they said that if by single sex they mean women and also people who aren't women but have a GRC which pretends they are. That's mixed sex despite the attempt at spin.

I just looked at the paragraph in question:
"Finally, one commentator has argued that the Inner House’s decision underscores the potential practical importance, for transgender people, of acquiring a GRC:
“the consequence of having a GRC following [the Inner House’s decision] is a prima facie right to use the services of the sex which has been confirmed by the GRC … the practical effect of the judgment is that the principles and presumptions where a trans-person is excluded from a single-sex space will differ depending on whether they have a GRC. A trans-person without a GRC excluded from a single-sex service
or space is being treated differently because of their sex … However, if a trans-person with a GRC is excluded from a service provided for those with the sex confirmed by their GRC, they are being treated differently because of the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This is where the Court held that there is a prima facie right of
access. In practice, it may be that exclusion is presumptively justified in the former case, but unjustified in the latter.” "

A legal document reporting a statement from "one commentator" is not the same as that Chambers giving a definitive legal position.

I'mgoing to now try to find out who the commentator is because I think it might be illuminating

You're twisting and turning this way and that to try to justify the misinformation and frankly somewhat obsessive points you are trying to hammer down.

For everyone else: look at facts and legislation, not paranoia, rightwing propaganda or misinformation from dubious sources.

I'm done with this debate which scarcely deserves to be called that, for the amount of sheer prejudice, lies and transphobia that is allowed to stand unchallenged.

I know, utterly desperate but scarily potentially convincing to those hard of thinking. If you repeat the same thing often enough (some) people start to believe it. Straight out of the Johnson playbook.

The back and forth of posts are a lot but @lifeturnsonadime knows the legal reality and makes sense of something that is not easy

Here is the "commentators" blog:

https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2023/12/05/lets-talk-about-sex-case-note-on-for-women-scotland-limited-v-the-scottish-ministers-2023-csih-37/

Firstly, the impact of For Women Scotland 2 in England and Wales. It is not binding, but persuasive. I would suggest that it would be hard to imagine, say, an employment tribunal declining to follow it. The case is, of course, binding on all inferior courts in Scotland.

Secondly, for both trans-rights campaigners and gender-critical campaigners such as FWS, the judgment is something of a mixed bag. On the one hand, the judgment confirms that, for the purpose of the EqA at least, sex is not immutable. The sex of a trans-man with a GRC is male, and the sex of a trans-woman with a GRC is female. On the other hand, having a GRC becomes the key determiner. As such, under the EqA, the sex of a trans-person without a GRC is their natal sex. Obtaining a GRC is not straightforward and requires, amongst other things, a medically evidenced diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

5000 people in the UK have a GRC. You are exceptionally unlikely to meet them in a single sex space.

In the meantime, if you are unlucky enough to be raped (1 in 6 women will be in their lifetime) you have no chance of getting justice.

I know where I want the opposition to focus.

"Falsified birth certificate". How can something that is legal be "falsified"?

Because it falsifies someone's sex - surely that is obvious?

This thread has been helpful in clarifying my thoughts actually.

As of 2022, there were 45,219,492 adults in the UK. 5000 have a GRC. That's 0.01% or around 1 in 9000.

It is vanishingly rare that I will encounter a TW with a GRC in a single sex space. So I think using the GRC and EA is fine.

A bigger problem is TW without a GRC, but that can be handled by the EA. The case law of people like iamsarah will help a lot.

As a key source, she is using a report that in turn is quoting another source. It is not definitive and therefore she is expressing her opinion and not a fact. Then claiming it is a fact and that people questioning it are libellous.

It is clearly a conspiracy theory at this point. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I think it's unpleasant to bring up iamsarah in a way which suggests that the trauma caused by TW invading women's rape supports would have been any different if that TW had a GRC. There is no justification for suggesting that GRC makes any difference to how TW are perceived. To most people, they remain male because male is a statement of biological fact.

To most people, they remain male because male is a statement of biological fact

I would extend this and say to everybody they remain male - just some people pretend but they know the truth as much as everyone else does.

Thats not what I did though is it. I'm saying her case will test whether it's reasonable for TW to use single sex spaces, even with a GRC. Women like her are doing the hard yards on this, much more than people shouting about Labour on the Internet. She's amazing 👏 (even though posters on FWR have castigated her for being the wrong kind of feminist)

Right, I'm also out. Bored of arguing about conspiracy theories now.

Not in the eyes of the law it doesn't, whether you like it or not.

Its not about letting issues slide, its about holding the Govt to account, which you and others don't want to do.

Why? because the Tories record on removal of Womens rights is shocking.

Labour aren't in power, may not be for another term (judging by the last few days) yet all we get is "What are Labour going to do...."

If you and others want to appear more even handed and genuinely interested in Womens rights then try and have a more balanced approach and ask questions of the Tories as well.

Labour have proudly stated they will be the first to include gender in hate crime law

What that includes is down to Starmer to clarify

Not in the eyes of the law it doesn't, whether you like it or not

It's a legal fiction to make men feel better. No one actually thinks that these men have changed sex.

That did sound like what you were saying. We don't need that premise to be tested. It's not reasonable. If she doesn't win her case, it's not because males in female spaces is reasonable it's because our justice system does not always treat women with respect. Yes Sarah is amazing. She's been treated appallingly.

I'm saying her case will test whether it's reasonable for TW to use single sex spaces, even with a GRC

It will never be reasonable for any men to use single our sex spaces.

Those of you who think the Tories are the guardians of women’s rights should remember the COVID enquiry where even the Tories themselves admitted women were excluded from decision making and that, had they been included, different decisions may have been made around locking up women with their abusers, shutting schools etc etc.

Just give me one example of when Rishi Sunak or Boris Johnson has put women to the forefront of policy? To answer the OP, their focus groups tell them this is an area Labour are weak on and so they will go for it. But do they actually care? We’ve had 14 years of Conservative government ~ why didn’t they fix it earlier?

The changes in sport and the discrediting of Stonewall has come through courageous individuals campaigning and risking abuse and being ostracised. We owe them a lot but let’s not pretend government has helped at all.

Are you saying Trans people shouldn't have the protection of the law when it comes to hate speech?

Quite, so why have the Tories allowed it to happen?