For women Scotland given leave to appeal.

[Rainbowshit]

x.com/forwomenscot/status/1758462083832639848?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

Great news. We need to get digging.

Indeed.

Also the law was written with it in mind that it meant you couldn't treat a male different to any other MALE on the basis of their gender identity. So you can't legally exclude transwomen from gentlemens clubs for example. Or for mens sport.

Not so transwomen could access single sex changing rooms (which are in theory covered by the single sex exemptions) or womens sport (again in theory covered by exemptions).

However this bit seems to have got rather forgotten and lost in Stonewall translation.

What an important thing to spot,
@IwantToRetire .

It is such a shame that Parliament would in all likelihood be too scared to stand up to TRAs claiming Human Rights for Transwomen over Human Rights for women, even if a petition for Parliament to make a Declaration of Incompatibility were launched.

Absolutely not. The law was written so that trans women could be excluded from women's spaces if it's legitimate and proportionate.

The statutory guideance says:

f a service provider provides single- or separate sex services for women and men, or provides services differently to women and men, they should treat transsexual people according to the gender role in which they present. However, the Act does permit the service provider to provide a different service or exclude a person from the service who is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or who has undergone gender reassignment. This will only be lawful where the exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The gender critical organisation Fair Play for Women acknowledges this, too.

https://fairplayforwomen.com/equality-act-2010_womens-rights/

3.60 Any exception to the prohibition of discrimination must be applied as restrictively as possible and the denial of a service to a transsexual person should only occur in exceptional circumstances. A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances. Service providers will need to balance the need of the transsexual person for the service and the detriment to them if they are denied access, against the needs of other service users and any detriment that may affect them if the transsexual person has access to the service. To do this will often require discussion with service users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice. Also,the provider will need to show that a less discriminatory way to achieve the objective was not available.

Are you saying that the dignity and privacy of women in a state of undress isn't a legitimate and proportionate aim, especially in the context of religious beliefs?

Are you saying that the competitive nature and integrity of women's sport and why it was invented in the first place to allow women to participate fairly isn't a legitimate and proportionate aim, especially given the physical risks of competition and the above point about changing rooms?

Tilts head expectantly.

People with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment have or intend to change sex.

They have or intend to change "physiological or other attributes" of sex. Because you do know you can't actually change biological sex, right?

‘If the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex’

This doesn't state that "reassigning" has successfully achieved that they are the opposite sex, does it?

If sex wasn't being used in such an unclear way such as needs to be properly defined, they wouldn't need to "change sex", would they? What even is it? It's clear that all the legislation around this is an incoherent shitshow.

Are you saying that the dignity and privacy of women in a state of undress isn't a legitimate and proportionate aim, especially in the context of religious beliefs?

Dadjoke has never acknowledged the legitimacy of women's privacy and dignity.

Absolutely not. The law was written so that trans women could be excluded from women's spaces if it's legitimate and proportionate.

Please give an example where you believe it is legitimate and proportionate.

Also the law was written with it in mind that it meant you couldn't treat a male different to any other MALE on the basis of their gender identity. So you can't legally exclude transwomen from gentlemens clubs for example. Or for mens sport.

Not so transwomen could access single sex changing rooms (which are in theory covered by the single sex exemptions) or womens sport (again in theory covered by exemptions).

I think the people involved in drafting it and weren't specifically pushing a misogynist agenda were foolish "oh think of poor Jan Morris" types, without the critical judgement or intelligence to understand the can of worms being opened by it.

Either it means "biological sex" and you can change it, or the definition of sex means something else in this context. Which is it?

You can't define a characteristic as someone who has undergone a process, and then deny that process is possible, or people with that characteristic don't exist. It would be bad law, so that's clearly not the correct interpretation.

Again, what definition of sex are you proposing?

It doesn't work for you either, Dadjoke. You are claiming all men who identify as women are protected by gender reassignment whether they have a certificate or not, which you seem to think qualifies them for being considered as "female" under the Equality Act.

It does not. The correct definition of a woman is adult human female. The correct definition of female is a person of the female biological sex. The Gender Recognition Act is a legal fiction.

Your interpretation of the Equality Act is not the one which has so far been established. It's arguable and will be argued in court that being female is something different to being a male with a certificate based on an ill conceived law. It's never been the case that men who identify as women without that certificate have legally "changed sex". and guidance put out based on TRA lobbying does not change that.

I'm not going to indulge this nonsense any further, as it's derailing an important thread.

Dadjoke is good at that.

@RedToothBrush at least we are on the same page with what the Act means.

Yes, trans women can be excluded from sporting events, and providers can chose to exclude trans women from women's rape crisis centers if they wish. They do not have not. No, I don't the law should be changed to exclude trans women from changing rooms and toilets which match their gender identity.

No, a religious belief that someone with a protected characteristic should be generally excluded from a non-religious space is not reasonable.

Setting aside time for events tied to a protected characteristic is legitimate and proportionate (eg a Muslim women's swimming hour.)

That's my last word on this topic on this thread.

Well there you go.

You don't have any respect for the dignity of women.

Nice to hear you say it out loud so we are all clear on the level of misogyny you have.

I have nothing further to argue. I have no need to.

Pls excuse typos. Eyesight still not completely fixed

@Chersfrozenface

Was that meant for a different thread, for eg the Scarlet Blake murder trial one?

I have nothing further to argue. I have no need to.

No, you don't.

Although most transactactivists prevaricate for half a dozen pages or so before they come out with this misogynist incel stuff.

i'm not sure why. It's not as tho we can't tell.

No, I don't the law should be changed to exclude trans women from changing rooms and toilets which match their gender identity.

Toilets aren't provided on the basis of genders though, are they? They're provided on the basis of sex. If toilets were provided on the basis of gender identity, we'd need 200 plus for all the genders.

No, a religious belief that someone with a protected characteristic should be generally excluded from a non-religious space is not reasonable.

The religious belief exists separately without reference to your religious belief in gender. People aren't Muslim or Jewish or Sikh at you. Other people's religious beliefs aren't about you.

That's my last word on this topic on this thread Noooooooo <sob>

I missed that you were having your eyesight fixed.
I'm sorry that you have not been well. How are you doing?

"That's my last word on this topic on this thread."

Well, that's a relief.

Don't speak too soon!

Yes.

I did mention the eyesight 😁

Ah, sorry.

Tick, tick, tick...

I suppose it makes a change from reported.