In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

[AlphariusOmegron]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/law-clear-cannot-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex?CMP=share_btn_tw

Gay rights would certainly have been harder if the challenge was "permit gay marriage without outing gay people"...

It’s not about toilets. The derailing is so tired and obvious.

DadJoke has at least done us the favour of very pointedly showing why this isn't a civil rights movement.

This isn't a group demanding a set of rights others enjoy that they lack.

It's a group demanding a special right to secrecy and lies, and the ability to enforce secrecy and lies, and compel people who know the truth to not say it.

Yes, it's about deception, as evidenced by Mermaids' submission to the consultation on 'Sex by deception'.

Their claim is it's not deception if one has a trans identity, and they want to make it impossible for anyone to even question that identity.

And it is always predicated on the absolute binary sex based belief that women should have no needs, no feelings, no equality, and should do nothing but serve the interests of men or suffer punishment, and that men have no responsibilities other than to do exactly what they want. Mostly to women.

No, that's not a civil rights movement, however it likes to identify.

I mean, break it down.

GC position - we expect reciprocity of care, inclusion, consideration, and require answers that work equally for everyone.

GI position - no reciprocation, just give and shut up because you're not an equal in this, and answers that work for other people are hate and genocide.

It's not that fantastically well balanced really. And it doesn't stand up in law. Because however cross the lobby gets, other people do have rights too.

I like very much how many legal professionals they approached for comment in that article. What the professionals said seemed very on point and not at all evasive or disingenuous. People are paying attention to these legal rulings, and it is going to trickle down.
The days of bullying people because you think it makes you a virtuous person to bully someone with unfashionable views are truely numbered now. I wonder who the virtue signallers will pick on next?

It will be interesting to see if the OU now settles the in progress legal cases, or are they up for a bunch more bad publiclity and payouts. Each case has to be judged on its own merits, but the days of "burn the gender critical witch" seem to be at the beginning of the end. Jo, Maya, Rachel and the rest are heroines for standing up for the rights of all of us. Does anyone know when Jo's legal remedies are decided please? I hope she takes them to the cleaners.

After listening to two days of Roz's tribunal live I have very high hopes for that too. The ERCC witnesses were mostly shambolic automata doing the best they could to parrot the party line. That organisation is in serious trouble, not just from how I expect the result to go, but the repercussions following from the result.

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten the OU has other similar cases in progress.

Acquiring a benefit by using a disguise is morally wrong.

Sex cannot be protected as a characteristic, as required by law, if it is kept secret.

There is also the point that in 99% of cases most people can tell with a single glance. A beard is a bit of a giveaway for example.

Pseudo-religious beliefs like imaginary ladyfeelz?

And the way they walk.

And the shovels at the end of their arms.

Feet like canal barges

.No genital inspection necessary.

YES.

It's interesting how often genital inspections come up. It's almost like they want them. Perhaps a fantasy?
It's not like there's a million obvious traits. The sense of entitlement is even more obvious than the beard. Asking for girly pillow fights, playing the piano with your cock, girl mode, etc...... Maybe that's one way to keep the single sex space for females, put a piano outside the door, anyone who plays it with their cock and sings about how taking it up the arse makes them a better woman than women has to use the men's/unisex. Wouldn't need gential inspections then.

Wouldn’t even need a Grand piano. You can buy fold-up keyboards now, and just trot one out with a bottle of sanitizer.

Wouldn’t want infected todgers, now would we?

So unladylike to just take what's not yours.

Reminds me of a group of people....hmmm.....oh yes that group of misogynist men that don't see women as human beings in their own right.

Voices are a giveaway too - very rare that a biological male sounds like a woman. You don't even need to see them to tell what sex they are.

Men and women smell different too which is why dogs can tell male from female but hopefully in general smell wouldn't be the obvious giveaway for humans as you'd probably have to get a bit unpleasantly close with our not very good sense of smell.

Although in terms of 'knock you out' BO, I've never experienced a woman being that pungent, only men.

Who's Felix?

We simply don't know.

Sorry, a bit obtuse. Search for Caroline Farrow threads in this topic.

Looks like the cultural war at the Guardian (which is really Guardian US vs everyone sensible) is starting to turn.

😁

A self identified cop-splainer. Used to spam and derail threads, usually ones where women had been threatened by plod for wrong think. Long, tedious, repetitive posts absolving the police of any blame because 'we simply don't know'

Ah I was thinking emotional support animal but that's clear now!

Oh, I'd forgotten he claimed to work for a police force where none of the current problematic 'wokeness' ever happened. The clever money was on Sodor.