Good Law Project's latest claim - fact check?

[teawamutu]

I'm sure there must be some arrant bollocks in here somewhere, because Jolyon.

But is there anything worrying in this?

goodlawproject.org/ehrc-backs-down-on-single-sex-toilets/

Nobody is forcing anyone into anything that is not already descriptive of them. You cannot change sex. This is reality. However you 'identify'

Groups other than those with trans identities also have rights, and it so happens that those rights and protections afforrded to people with the protected characteristic of 'Gender -Re-assignment' do not over-rule or over-ride those with the protected characteristic of 'Sex'.

Gay men are not trying to force women to have sex with them. They only seek to have sex with other men who are attracted to them...and by consent. Gay men are not claiming to be women; they are simply reclaiming a right to express their more feminine natures.

It depends on how 'trans' is defined, doesn't it? What you seem to expect is that people must believe and accept that men can become women and vice versa; rather than some people feel better about themselves(for a time) if they present as the opposite sex.

The problem , as already stated several times, with an identity that is predicated on other people believing in it - is that it is very shaky and prone to collapse. Wouldn't it be better to accept the nature of reality, as well as other people's rights, and learn to adapt your own self definition to both of these things?

Having a trans identity does not make you the centre of the universe.

LGB people are not the same a trans people simply because they don’t need medical, cosmetic or clothing paraphernalia to identify themselves.

this is very odd reasoning, I dint know where to start with it. Trans people don’t need any of these things to “identify themselves” either.

Trans people may need medical assistance to alleviate dysphoria, gay people may need medical assistance to have a baby, all kinds of people need medical assistance for all kinds of reasons…

Without a definition of biological sex, as a protected characteristic, Lesbians, bisexuals and gay men’s right would be erased.
What say you to that

I would say that’s also a complete nonsense- just as the idea that recognising trans people erases women is a nonsense. It’s a misunderstanding of sex, gender, sexuality and transness. People have taken an outdated and oversimplified theory and pursued it to the extremities of logic. It just has nothing to do with reality.
Ireland has self ID and women and gay people are no worse over there than they are over here.

To be honest, I've been nothing but polite and clear, but firm. Nobody here is " the rest". You seem to want to be mollycoddled.

'Woman' ( female) is a biological category...not an identity category. Saying that male people are female people erases the integrity of female people. Female people are not male people.They are defined entirely by their biology ( just as male people are) - in that their biology is the only shared characteristic that all women ( and girls) have.

Biological sex is not an outlandish theory. It is how nature works. It is a fact of life on earth. Human beings are mammals that have somehow evolved to be able to create a measure of civilisation. Equalities legilslation is one way that human beings have created a measure of civility out of basic differences.

I am wondering when tandora uses women/female then tandora is including transwomen in the women category so females are only allowed protections in law if they include males.

Ireland has self ID and women and gay people are no worse over there than they are over here.

Ireland puts extremely dangerous male offenders into the women's prison estate on their own say so. Despite the media blackout in Ireland, this is quite easy to discover if you're online.

In the UK it was at least possible to discuss this, despite the efforts of TQ+ activists to make the issue off limits.

Lol if to you “polite , clear, firm” includes calling people stupid, a “dick panderer” , mocking names like “mandora”, “transdora” amongst others , I have concerns..:

To be fair , however, this is all very tame , compared to how abusive the mumsnet GC fanatical crew normally are.

Of course, because if you believe TWAW, then TWAW.

Question then is, what are women - other a social projection of stereotyped personal characteristics and preferences. And IF TWAW why do they need to 'transition'? And what exactly are they transitioning to?

Don't ask Dylan Mulvaney.

I've never called anyone any names or used any such language.

Ok then speak for yourself . but why the statement “nobody here is the rest”?

Also I’m not even that bothered about stuff that people say to me, because I know it’s of no truth or consequence. it’s also the stuff people say about trans people that makes me angry because that is having real world impacts right now.

Because you were suggesting that just one poster had been reasonable and polite with you, and then you referred to " the rest". We are all individuals here...with our own style and way of going about things.

When you knowingly post against the flow of any forum then it is obviously difficult to have so many and varied responses....in which you find yourself a lone voice...but why else would someone post on a forum which is known to be a place in which people of similar mind ( contrary to your own) gather for support and information related to their cause?

Why would I post here? I do so sometimes. Not that often. But sometimes. I sometimes come on the forum Because I’m also following the latest updates on these things and am curious how people are interpreting them- like this statement by the good law project. Then I post: to offer a different sort of contribution . To be a voice of dissent. Of reason. To interrupt the echo chamber as it’s causing a lot of harm and is responsible for a lot of online radicalisation.

They may be respected legal minds, but they clearly have very limited to zero understanding of sex, gender, sexuality , transness and virtually no apprehension at all about what was at stakea and the real world impacts of their judgement. They were irresponsible.

In law (and correctly so, in my opinion) rights are allocated by "birth sex category". Nobody needs to be "forced" into a category of which they have been a member since birth.

Trans people can be defined as the group of people who want to be in the opposite sex category. Claiming the rights that define you as a group is circular:
I want those rights which means I'm trans, and because I'm trans I deserve those rights.

Cancel out the team naming, and it boils down to I deserve those rights because I want those rights.

Tandora

If the guidance stays as it is and is passed in law, the result we be very few services left designated specifically for women.

Good grief! Please disabuse yourself of the ridiculous misconception that the EHRC pass law. The law is the EA 2010 and was passed 15 years ago! 5 Supreme Court judges heard evidence and discussed it in chambers.

They ruled that, according to the Act, sex means sex, not gender and that TWAM.

The EHRC are writing a summary; the guidance, on how organisations should apply the law in practice.

If you can get your head round that relatively basic fact, you may realise why you are wrong.

That is the most desperate comment regarding the SC Judgement I've read, it is actually hilarious in it's desperation.

This is true, and important. Explicit in the Equality Act 2006 is that a code of practice from the EHRC isn't a replacement for the law, and duty holders have a statutory duty to follow the law, not the guidance. A court can take notice of whether you followed the guidance or not, but following the law is what actually counts, if you don't want to get in trouble:

Equality Act 2006, section 15:
(4)A failure to comply with a provision of a code shall not of itself make a person liable to criminal or civil proceedings; but a code—
(a)shall be admissible in evidence in criminal or civil proceedings, and
(b)shall be taken into account by a court or tribunal in any case in which it appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant.

In the Times:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/da03b7cd-1c0c-4f7f-8111-251d42c146fc?shareToken=8d3aa628e628b094b2f09a3487b14be1

@Tandora do you believe females deserve rights to have spaces separate to males when appropriate? Or are they only allowed rights if transwomen are included?

FFS yes I understand about the EA, the judgement and the guidance. I was writing in brief referring to the fact that if the guidance (which is currently draft) is put to parliament in its current form and is accepted and becomes statutory- the effects will ultimately be fewer services for women. They will have to be, since the guidance is otherwise unreasonable and unmanageable. The only way out for providers is to go unisex.

This was @SinnerBoy until I realised who I was replying to. Should have thought better of it.

Why? Why is it unreasonable to provide single sex facilities plus a universal facility?

Because it’s utterly unreasonable to other, out , police trans people in every sphere of public life including the workplace, etc. this is affecting trans people right now- it’s utterly degrading and humiliating what people are already going through .
It’s absolutely a violation of their right to privacy for a start.

It's utterly degrading and unreasonable to expect females to share spaces with males when they are in any state of undress even if that is behind a cubicle door.

The rights of trans people does not matter more than the rights of females.