Abigail Thorn podcast

[Justme56]

I was browsing through YouTube and a recent video came up with Thorn and Freddie McConnell. I have to admit not watching the video yet (I may or may not) but I did browse through the comments. This one caught my eye. The person says they work with LGBTQ groups, schools, colleges etc and is adamant of a full understanding of UK law. Whilst an organisation can define their own policies (and obviously have to consider the needs of all protected groups when doing so - as well as health and safety regulations), it still astounds me that people like this feel that a simple statement like ‘I am trans’ - something anyone can declare, should ultimately allow them to go wherever they want. This person is male.

Thorn is notoriously daft. Though interestingly he thinks that Gender dysphoria doesn't exist a position that upsets a lot of trans folks.

https://transwrites.world/have-we-got-it-wrong-on-dysphoria-abigail-thorn-discusses-trans-healthcare/

This is because Thorn was happy being a guy until he slept with a male trans person, had an identity crisis [i.e was homophobic] and decided he was trans too. The fact that other people had gender distress/dysphoria for a long time makes his offensive motivations for transitioning seem bad this is WHY Thorn wants to undermine the concept.

However I can now reveal that Thorn is definitely one of our key double agents agents in Operation Let Them Speak. Keep going Agent Thorn with your help we will bring this nonsense down.

I'd say that that's where "gender reassignment" ended up for many, and particularly for some key institutions, as a result of many years of lobbying, institutional capture, and misinformation, and I'd expect there are plenty in the judiciary who would try to interpret the term in that way.

However, that's a long way away from where it started (remember the 5000 transsexuals who the other significant act, the GRA, was passed for?) and the second paragraph is evidence and the success of the lobbying, institutional capture, and misinformation.

Thing is, even a GRC doesn't automatically get you access into all single-sex spaces or jobs. If there is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.'

And that does not have to be done on a case-by-case basis. For example, a women's refuge can blanket ban anyone but a woman/girl (and boys up to a certain age) from staying there.

It makes sense that the gender reassignment PC applies straight away, because amongst other things it's there to prevent those who are proposing to undergo a process of gender reassignment from being discriminated against on that basis - in particular, it is intended to stop employers firing someone who announces that they are going to go through the process.

It's only once a GRC is obtained (which takes at least 2 years) that one has the right to start being treated for most purposes as the opposite sex.

The PC of gender reassignment is supposed to ensure that eg a transwoman without a GRC is not treated worse than a man in their equivalent position (as confirmed by R (Green) v SSfJ), and a transwoman with a GRC is not treated worse than a woman, subject to the various provisions in the GRA, Equality Act and any other legislation that permit a difference in treatment (eg sport, single sex services etc). The problem is that it is widely misunderstood and misrepresented.

Lots say that simplifying the GRC process doesn't matter, because its the PC of GR that entitles someone to use the opposite sex spaces and services.

If true, it would amount to self id into opposite sex facilities. It would be useful if politicians heard that assertion and clarified the situation.

Thanks for the legal details @AmateurNoun Too many people swallow the Stonewall TWAW and can go into any female single-sex space/job/whateber. No they can't.

Thorn gives me the absolute heebie-jeebies. Almost Jeffrey Marsh levels of suppressed, coiled-spring aggression.