'Mumsnet to argue in court that TWAM'

[donquixotedelamancha]

Apologies if I am duplicate posting, I can't seem to see a thread on this.

I've put the title in quotes because it's from Stephanie Hayden, so is quite possibly untrue. Here is the text of her tweet:

If #Mumsnet are only interested in "free speech" then many of you will find it odd that MumsnetTowers towers are intending to argue in court that #transgender women holding a GRC (legally of the female sex) do not hold the protected characteristic of the sex of a woman.

mobile.twitter.com/flyinglawyer73/status/1183047304976257025

Well there’s nothing there, is there.

Intending to argue?

That means nothing has happened yet. Or has possibly been even considered, by parties unknown, on a website of thousands of posters.

It’s just bait for the minds of children.

There’s no legal argument like a legal argument in a court. Until then, nothing is happening.

It’s just bait for the minds of children.

That was my perception. I presume that SH has made some nonsense claim of sex discrimination and just made up the rest from there.

Just bluster to keep the perpetually offended thinking that this forum is more interesting than it actually is.

I don't see why MN would even have a view on it. And who does Flying Lawyer mean by Mumsnet anyway? Justine? Us? More Flying Lawyer bluster. Do give over, there's a dear.

Let's say in theory this was actually a thing that was happening. Would that statement not mean essentially "these people who say that they're interested in free speech actually intend to use that free speech to say things I don't like, how dare they"?

People like this have the minds of children. They imagine the court system is going to send a lightning bolt down to smite their enemies,

You can always tell those people who are high on the “justicezone” theory of law. They are odd. Nothing you say will dissuade then from their deluded arguments.

Even when they lose, they claim victory. They are actually to be pitied in some level.

What rubbish.

Suggests there is a court case pending.

@MNHQ just flagging in case you wish to comment, which you may not even be able to I guess.

Suggests there is a court case pending.

I seem to recall something about her suing MN for facilitating harassment or somesuch drivel. I'm sure a trawl of her Twitter timeline would elucidate the matter, but I've eaten.

*Caveat pronounor.

I'm guessing that Steph ignored the advice to "go well"

I think "steps are being taken" is weird-arse passive voice newspeak for "I am trying to manipulate Mumsnet into saying something I can try to take them to court for in order go feed my unending need for attention,"

Wanker.

What kind of batshittery is this? Any legal bods here? If Hayden successfully argues in the court of rainbows and unicorns that transwomen are women if they have a GRC only, doesn’t that mean that if they DON’T have a GRC, they can’t be considered women, legally? Isn’t Hayden arguing against Self-ID?

And didn't they obtain their cert by not-very-transparent means? So circumnavigating the actual law?

Isn’t Hayden arguing against Self-ID?

Exactly. Which I imagine, might well prove rather problematic. Depending on which way you look at it, it's a win-win for women tho.

They are considered men by the law. The law states that they should be treated for all purposes as their 'acquired gender', not that they are the acquired gender. The single sex exemptions confirm that they are considered by the law to be men.

That's a different thing to saying they don't come under their new sex marker for their protected characteristic status. Once they have a GRC, they do.

That's a different thing to saying they don't come under their new sex marker for their protected characteristic status. Once they have a GRC, they do.

That's how I understand it Charlie.

But there are times when they can be discriminated against, even with a GRC, isn't that right? In which case does the law still not consider them exactly the same as women?

I realise that's not the same as having the protected characteristic of women though.

Personally, I'd like to know what it is that Mumsnet said to make this happen. Because it's quite straightforward that with a GRC you do get the protected characteristic of woman.

I'm guessing this will be about the Equalities Act not saying what Hayden would like it to say and that having been stated on MN at some point.

I'd like to know what it is that Mumsnet said to make this happen.

Presumably it's because they let Karen white and other infamous people be called "he".

They definitively come under their 'acquired gender' in terms of the protected characteristics if they have a GRC.

That doesn't mean the law says they're women, or considers them to be women. The Equality Act 2010 specifically acknowledges they aren't women by allowing exceptions.

Someone who is male and has no GRC would have to make a claim of harassment over being called 'he', I believe.

We know how covert this entire thing has been even going back to the 70s. Stephen Whittle's posts on here were very interesting. Everything being done behind closed doors influencing the GRA.

Are we expected to believe that this group of people have chosen Hayden as their leader for legal battles? It seemed more as if they were trying to keep their influence on public policy a bit more under wraps.

Hayden the gatekeeper, who'd have thunk it. And with Harrop apologising for being a homosexual male who's attracted to other homosexual males, they almost appear to be quite the pair of transphobes.

They definitively come under their 'acquired gender' in terms of the protected characteristics if they have a GRC.

Thanks charlie One more question if I may?

I'm trying to imagine a situation where a transwoman would be discriminated against on the basis that they are a woman. Would that only ever happen if the person doing this discriminating truly thought they were female?

It's sort of doing my head in. Because, let's take all women shortlists. Say you want them remain actually female. And you say a transwoman can't be on it, but not because they're a woman, but because they're not a woman. And even though the equality act says they are, that's not the basis on which you are excluding them.