Is anyone worried about pressure now to change the Equality legislation?

[Unbeleevable]

There's a lot of wisdom in this forum - I wondered in the happy afterglow of the very clear-cut SC and EHCR pronouncements on biological sex … is there a risk that behind this, someone is pulling strings to publish strong statements hoping this will to trigger a surge of pro-trans-rights sentiment leading to a widespread acceptance the EA must change to encompass rights based on declared gender identity? And eventually a political mandate for the same?

In other words - we can’t expect the TRAs will give up. Have we won the battle but not the war?

I have long felt I have landed on the wrong side of history in my GC convictions - I can’t shake the feeling that the recent developments are too good to be true.

Possible memory loss and definite word salad.

It's not HRT. You're not the same sex as mum.

Gosh, D!

I don't know what BH gets surprised at your posting just what has been said...

JFC, the absolute twisting of the truth in that post.

Only one side has lied and lied and lied. Only one side has bullied. For the avoidance of doubt that is you and your side ButterflyHatched.

You keep blathering on about the Supreme Court Judgement claiming it is new legislation. It is not. It is clarifying that the Equality Act always said what we women said it said and that the rights of women as a class exist and must be upheld. The lies that were peddled by you and Trans Organisations of what the Equality Act said have been shown to be just that - lies. The false narrative and shameless misrepresentation is all on your side, own it. Yes, it has taken a long time and a lot of effort to correct those lies but women have done so, deal with it.

I think there is a strong case for reviewing the Equality Act 2010, even though it served us well in this case. The underpinning principle of English law, going back some 800 years, is equality before the law. Do we already had equality without the act. The act is really misnamed. It should be called the Minorities Act because it protects everyone except able bodied heterosexual white men. Implicit within this is the risk that the more minority statuses you can rack up or the more marginalised your minority status is perceived to be, the more protected you are in law. We have seen this recently with the unelected Sentencing Council suggesting that minority status should result in a convicted criminal getting a lesser sentence than someone who committed the same crime but does not have a protected characteristic. This presents an ongoing risk to women, because there are clearly people who think being trans is more marginalised and therefore more worthy of protection than being female. Ironically, if we didn’t have the Equality Act or Gender Recognition Act (which is another piece of equality rights legislation) at all then it would have been more difficult for trans women to encroach on female spaces, because women would be biologically defined and workplaces etc are already required to provide separate facilities for men and women. What we need instead is anti-discrimination legislation that doesn’t list protected characteristics, but instead recognised that being unfairly discriminated against is wrong.

Women need rights that men don’t. If you treat everyone the same, (How many people really need maternity leave? Can’t we just sack anyone who asks for a sabbatical?), women cannot participate equally in society.

The act is really misnamed. It should be called the Minorities Act because it protects everyone except able bodied heterosexual white men

Heterosexual white men have at least 3 protected characteristics under the Equality Act

Sex
Race
Sexual orientation

We had protected maternity leave long before the Equality Act. You can achieve women’s rights without a piece of legislation that has permitted a decade of men encroaching in women’s spaces on spurious grounds. The problem with the Act is that it lists conflicting minority statuses and this has resulted in thr perception that the most hip minority status (bring trans) trumps other statuses (being female / religious / from an ethnic minority). That’s why a black Christian nurse lost her job for referring to a trans woman paedophile as ‘he’. It is still a problem because there is a potential to say that sex under the equality act is not relevant in this case, only gender identification is, because she was disciplined for language they deem unacceptable, not for being a woman.

They don’t because they are not deepened to be a minority in any of these categories. But they aren’t really relevant in this thread, as it is about women. The point here is how competing minority rights are prioritised when there is conflict between them.

The Equality Act didn't allow men in women's spaces, as confirmed by the Supreme Court sex in the EA means biological sex.

It was Stonewall and others misrepresentation of it that allowed that

You don't have to be a minority.

A white man recently won a case for race discrimination against either the police or the armed forces. Can't confirm whether he was heterosexual or not

We had rights legislation before 2010. The EA just pulls it together into one act. Is it all equality legislation that you dislike or just the EA?

I don’t know all the details of the nurse losing her job, but there is no statutory obligation to refer to anyone by a preferred pronoun and Christianity is protected under the EA.

We know that hospital policies don’t necessarily comply with the EA and may not be legal.

Employment tribunals have been won because the belief that sex matters is protected. You might think that is stupid - of course sex matters - but no equality legislation, no unfair dismissal.

Jolyon Maugham won a sex discrimination case when he wasn’t recruited for a temporary secretarial position!

No it doesn't.

That's an interpretation by fuckwits who don't understand the word equality and that rights are not like pie.

I think you are misunderstanding the act.

I simply suggested there is an argument for reviewing the existing legislation. I’m not convinced that listing statuses is the best approach, as if we know what all possible bases for discrimination are and because at present they can be pitched against each other, which is what trans activists have been doing.

Unfortunately, I think we are going to have to fight to prevent the SC ruling from being subverted (there are a lot of influential people intent on that and a lot of companies prioritising solidarity with trans women over women). I don’t think we are out of the woods yet.

Brava @Datun👏

While it's easy to bedazzle the public with rampant porky pies in newspaper headlines, opinion pieces, bad science and misleading guidance, especially when those lies are repeated enough times that they become embedded, each time you do this and are then proven wrong, people become a little wiser and more aware of your duplicity. Each successive lie gradually expends any remaining credibility you have left.

right back atcha…following datuns post i think everyone can see who the liar is

I don’t listen to it very often but thought I’d take a look at Pod Save the UK’s latest episode as we all know how much Noah hates women. Safe to say the hyperbole in the summary reads like it’s been written by a moody teen having a tantrum 🤣

”In the wake of the UK Supreme Court ruling that the legal definition of woman should be based on biological sex, Nish and Zoë speak to LGBTQ+ activist Ellen Jones, author of "Outrage: Why the fight for LGBTQ+ equality is not yet won and what we can do about it" about the implications for trans people and what we can do about it.

They discuss how the campaigning of reactionaries like billionaire author JK Rowling led to the decision that has seen Prime Minister Keir Starmer backflipping on his support for the trans community. Ellen speaks on the dangers of the recent ruling and practical ways to resist and support the trans community.”

The show notes are full of links to buying trans merch and signing up to volunteer at trans pride.

If anyone feels like taking one for the team and listening let us know!

Practical ways to resist women's legal protections in law.

My GOD these people are thick.

To change the legislation in any meaningful way one would have to convince 5 expert lawyers that the previous Supreme Court were wrong on all those facts that are in the full judgement and that the new facts would not be illogical and existing legislation could absorb it.
No Chance!