Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists

141 replies

IwantToRetire · 11/02/2024 01:58

The Equality Act is being used to attack trans people while protecting those that do so

a loophole in the law which allows GC activists to publicly attack trans people while insulating them from criticism or professional consequences in response. The same loophole leaves trans-people without equivalent protection.

This isn’t the fault of the Tribunal. Judges can only apply the law. In all of the above cases, the employers made errors. The result would probably have been the same even without the more extreme impacts of the law. The fault lies with the politicians, who have chosen to demonise trans people rather than grapple with difficult issues. GC activists like to claim they are oppressed by the “woke minority”.

Second, the law permits GC activists to use intemperate (arguably degrading) language to attack trans people but appears to prohibit criticism in response.

Third, while the law protects GCs from suffering professional consequences for their activism, there does not appear to be equivalent protection for trans people, or acknowledgement of the real violence against them to which GCs contribute.

NB - these are only extracts, not the full arguement from the author - who is a Barrister -Sam Fowles. https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists/

Also a Director of ICDR which says:

Provide legislators and officials at all levels of government and devolution with non-partisan, concise, accessible, and strategic advice on constitutional and democratic issues.
https://www.icdr.co.uk/about

I wonder if he understands what non partisan means?!

How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists

The Equality Act is being used to attack trans people while protecting those that do so

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Chersfrozenface · 11/02/2024 15:23

😁

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/02/2024 15:51

I thought that was because Stonewall did hire such a person, or at least someone who claimed to have run those "cotton ceiling" workshops, though I'm not aware if they ever ran any while employed at Stonewall.

They did, the "Cotton Ceiling" workshop that was notorious was in 2012 in Canada. The person must have moved to the U.K. as they were working for Stonewall when Allison made the comment, I don't think they ran the workshops here though.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/02/2024 15:52

ein Backpfeifengesicht

Had to look that up. How excellent that there is a word.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/02/2024 15:53

seems to be acknowledging that virtually all transwomen do still have a penis.

Yes. Thanks for the sunlight, Sam!

SidewaysOtter · 11/02/2024 16:02

It's not a loophole and it doesn't allow abuse, but they are realising it does allow GC views.

Quite. He seems to be missing the point that, in terms of the Equality Act, the clue is in the name: Equality. Gender critical views are a protected belief which grants the same rights as those who believe that they are a different sex to the one they were born as, or others who believe that people can transition from one sex to another. That’s equality.

The author seems to be of the non-uncommon mindset that there should be one rule for one belief and another rule for a differing belief. And that some beliefs are allowed elevation to “special” status where an opposing view is not permitted at all. That’s NOT equality.

What so many people seem to misunderstand is the difference between being pro one thing and anti the opposite. I’m not anti-trans, I’m pro-women and just want to see everyone playing by the same - fair - rules rather than some people having the right to inflict (either directly or indirectly) harm on others. Where there is a conflict of rights, the path of least harm should be taken and that means women’s rights not to be raped, assaulted or threatened ranks above someone else’s hurt feelings.

CuntingBunting · 11/02/2024 17:25

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/02/2024 09:23

Holy misrepresentation, Batman.

And he repeats this claim in this GB news video, saying that Keir Starmer should have said that 99.5% of women don't have a penis, which would be accurate, according to him. When actually the number of "trans women" is only 48k in the census.

He also makes a ridiculous comment "if you're gender critical don't have a sex change. But leave trans people alone." He appears to think that's some kind of mic drop argument.

https://x.com/samfowles/status/1755900696879137056?s=46&t=SPorwN-mokktL467rcZ57g

He's quite funny.

How a loophole in UK law helps out anti-trans activists
Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/02/2024 17:31

He's quite funny.

GrinGrin

SidewaysOtter · 11/02/2024 18:30

He also makes a ridiculous comment "if you're gender critical don't have a sex change. But leave trans people alone." He appears to think that's some kind of mic drop argument.

I guess he’s copied that from the “Don’t like abortion/gay marriage? Don’t have one/marry someone of the same sex” without realising that it doesn’t work in this context.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 11/02/2024 18:37

Yes, that sounds plausible.

IwantToRetire · 11/02/2024 18:51

Have enjoyed reading the comments on this thread! Knew FWRers would pull it apart in a clear and explicit way ...

But have to say given the number of links to photos of the author am wondering whether he isn't rehearsing for his second career as an actor in some farce or maybe looking for work as a male model.

OP posts:
popebishop · 11/02/2024 22:33

He also makes a ridiculous comment "if you're gender critical don't have a sex change. But leave trans people alone." He appears to think that's some kind of mic drop argument.

That's pathetic. More accurate would be "if you're gender critical then don't redefine "man"/"woman" away from "male"/"female"." Which is exactly what we are criticised for (illegally, according to him....)

Justme56 · 12/02/2024 13:49

Naomi Cunningham has passed this article onto the judge in the Rachel Meade remedies meeting. I believe as an example of why proper training is so desperately needed! 😀

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 14:46

There's lots of discussion about this article on Twitter today, including by other legal professionals such as Anya Palmer and Joanna Cherry, as well as Sonia Sodha. Stephen Whittle thinks it's great though.

The article has been amended and a grudging clarification added.

"Clarification: Sam Fowles and the New European do not intend, in this article, to make any suggestion that Denise Fahmy has “publicly attacked trans people”. As the article makes clear, Ms Fahmy’s case is referred to purely as a part of a line of cases which highlight the legal loophole discussed in the article."

They've also taken out the bit about LGB Alliance "comparing "trans" to bestiality" and corrected Katherine Stock to Kathleen Confused

WorriedMutha · 12/02/2024 15:28

I actually subscribe to the New European and share your horror at this ill informed hatchet job. I've got the app on my phone and can't figure a way of engaging with the publication. There's no letters section. Their X page doesn't seem to feature this piece so you can't comment underneath.
Matthew D'Ancona is the editor and I know he has espoused sensible opinions on gender topics before. I'm sure he wouldn't agree with this drivel.
I just wonder if this is cutting through to them in real time? They have edited the article without acknowledging the error.
Surely it is the ultimate humiliation to have your piece of legal journalism handed up to a judge hearing a discrimination case based on GC opinions as a first rate example as to why further training and education is needed in this area.

IwantToRetire · 12/02/2024 18:01

They have edited the article without acknowledging the error.

That is really bad. ie the publishers are covering up that they made an error. ie that the editor or whoever approved the publication either didn't do their job well, or nodded through something because they shared the view point.

OP posts:
IwantToRetire · 12/02/2024 18:02

There's lots of discussion about this article on Twitter today

Where FWR leads twitter follows!!

OP posts:
Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 18:29

Looks like it's gone completely now, before that they retracted the retraction about Denise Fahmy, possibly because it made it look like they were saying the other four women had attacked trans people.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 18:36

Third, while the law protects GCs from suffering professional consequences for their activism, there does not appear to be equivalent protection for trans people, or acknowledgement of the real violence against them to which GCs contribute. Forstater criticised an Endometriosis charityy^ for appointing Steph Richards, a trans-woman, as its CEO. Linehan was part of online attacks on Rape Crisis Scotland’s trans managerr^. The level of online hate and threats forced the centre into lockdown. Katherine Stock, a trustee of the LGB Alliance (of which Bailey is a founder) has called for the public outing of trans childrenn^. None of these attracted legal censure.

I'm still confused by this paragraph. None of these things happened while these people were employed by anyone related. They are all private individuals with a profile on social media. Outside of charging them all with hate crime for wrongthink, what "legal censure" could they attract?

IwantToRetire · 12/02/2024 18:52

Page could not be found.

I never even took a copy.

What a shame - not!

OP posts:
Chersfrozenface · 12/02/2024 18:56

I do hope someone has archived it.

Filed under "Very Silly Things People Have Written Which They Really Hope We'll Forget All About".

CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 18:57

Bugger it! I never thought to archive!

DworkinWasRight · 12/02/2024 18:59

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 18:36

Third, while the law protects GCs from suffering professional consequences for their activism, there does not appear to be equivalent protection for trans people, or acknowledgement of the real violence against them to which GCs contribute. Forstater criticised an Endometriosis charityy^ for appointing Steph Richards, a trans-woman, as its CEO. Linehan was part of online attacks on Rape Crisis Scotland’s trans managerr^. The level of online hate and threats forced the centre into lockdown. Katherine Stock, a trustee of the LGB Alliance (of which Bailey is a founder) has called for the public outing of trans childrenn^. None of these attracted legal censure.

I'm still confused by this paragraph. None of these things happened while these people were employed by anyone related. They are all private individuals with a profile on social media. Outside of charging them all with hate crime for wrongthink, what "legal censure" could they attract?

Surely it is Rape Crisis Edinburgh, not Scotland, that has the trans manager?

ghislaine · 12/02/2024 19:00

Did anyone manage to archive it? I’m intrigued to read more about this “loophole” and where in the EA one might find it.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 12/02/2024 19:01

Yes, another inaccuracy!

CuntingBunting · 12/02/2024 19:01

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240211001518/www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20240211001518/www.theneweuropean.co.uk/sam-fowles-loophole-uk-law-helps-out-anti-trans-activists/

Gah, paywalled, sorry

Swipe left for the next trending thread