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/

And how do you propose calculating “loads” as a proportion of the total number of people you’ve encountered?

He's completely hysterical now.

Saw him out on the street a few weeks ago and he looked like he's melting, too.

All very weird and more than a bit creepy.

I didn't say that gender critical feminism is the only type of feminism.

I said that feminism which centres female people is the only type of feminism.

For what it's worth, though, feminism is inherently gender critical, because gender is a load of sexist bullshit. It's a system to enable the oppression of the female sex.

Back to Jolyon - he seems to be using some of the money he grifted raised to support the funding of a journalist at Queer AF:

Thanks to their support, we have launched the recruitment process to hire a part-time lead investigative journalist, ensuring QueerAF can independently deliver regular, exclusive investigations in our free weekly newsletter.

https://www.wearequeeraf.com/queeraf-and-good-law-project-partner-to-deliver-lgbtqia-investigative-journalism/

There's statutory guidance for many laws. Equal pay being one I use regularly.

Do you also have a problem with equal pay law as they have produced guidance for it?

Or is it just the thing men want?

Testerical, you mean! 😄

Tandora, nobody even knows how many trans people there are in the UK. Stonewall has no idea. The government has no idea. The ONS has no idea. It's not possible to calculate how many trans people there are, let alone how many of them pass.

All I am telling you is that I regularly encounter non passing trans people, and of those trans people who post pictures of themselves online, I'd say that almost none of them do, even in pictures which can be photoshopped. Even poor Jackie Green.

baffled. To be clear I do not have a problem with legal guidance as a general rule 😂.

I have a problem with the way the EHRC has interpreted the SC ruling in their draft guidance and I do not believe it will stand. (Although people are so nuts these days, you never know).

Right so your statement was entirely made up / informed by prejudice and also nonsensical .

I can't work out what point he's trying to make by saying that the supreme court heading should be included. The section is about why the ruling is not a disadvantage to trans people

The EHRC have said the same thing the Supreme Court said, only in terms they think idiots will understand.

Unfortunately...

So you are walking back that one then.

No, I said I regularly clock non passing trans people and I don't believe there can be enough trans people in the population for most of them to be escaping my attention.

Eh? Baffled.

Was wondering about Jolyon splashing the cash to someone else. Now I get it:

We'll release more in-depth, accessible explainers of what's happening in the courts.

So this is a way for Jolyon to buy favourable coverage.

https://bsky.app/profile/wearequeeraf.com/post/3lrxvf7d3w22j

Seriously, your main concern about able-bodied trans people using the disabled toilet is that it is an indignity for the trans person?

Why are you not outraged as I am that accessible facilities which disabled people campaigned for for decades are being handed over for use by some able-bodied people, like some kind of consolation prize?

Surely a trans person who had any respect for marginalised minorities like people with disabilities, if faced with the prospect of using the toilet designated for their sex OR using the toilet designated for people with disabilities who physically need an adapted toilet, would conclude that on balance, the physical needs of disabled people are more important than gendered preferences, and they would show their respect for disabled people's rights by not using the accessible toilet.

And by pointing out to HR that disabled people's rights and spaces are not to be handed out to able-bodied people, for any reason!

There is nothing physically preventing trans people from using the toilet designated for their sex, which is not the case with disabled people who physically need the toilets designated for them.

Of course! It's his own Erin in the Morning.

Fiction, but make it newsy.

Yes it’s a problem for disabled people.

But are you seriously blaming this on trans people, and suggestion that a trans woman- now banned from the female loos - should chose to walk into the men’s over the private disabled loo?

Is this really what you believe?

I think we know the answer to this.

Because only trans people matter.

Tandora is incapable of seeing things from any perspective other than "is it what trans people want?"

Couple of fellas to tell us off eh?

No thanks.

Nope. If anything the person they are telling off is me .

It's your cognitive dissonance that's causing your bafflement.
It's quite entertaining though.

I still want to know why being "outed" as transgender is such a big deal. I ask again - is identifying as trans something to be ashamed of?

OK, so here you were using 'women' to mean 'female-sex'. Yet you also argue that being female is not a requirement to be a woman.

It's not "semantic" or 'about the use of language' - it's communicating what you mean in a consistent way. I honestly can't understand your point when you say woman to mean 'exclusively female' in one sentence, and 'male or female' in another.

And again - it's literally the definition of transgender - that there is biological sex, and there are gender identities, and they are different. It's on the Stonewall website, it's everywhere.

I genuinely want to know if you can understand this, or if you dismiss sex and gender identity as being the same thing?

I know you will just casually call me a liar, but I am speaking the truth: I am trying to understand where you're coming from but if I take what you say literally or assume you are using a word to mean the same thing each time you say it, your statements will often be provably false. I'm trying to make them make sense because you seem insistent that you have some argument or position - I just can't quite work out what it is.

You seemed to have completely misunderstood what I wrote and somehow interpreted it as me having a go at the concept of guidance.

Both baffling and entertaining indeed.

Anyways.