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/

You think it’s ok to out gay people too?

We haven't set up a whole system for gay people to fake their relationships so they can pretend to be heterosexual.

We let them live them lives openly. We didn't create fake opposite-sex marriages, or allow them to fake the sex of their partners when interacting with organisations, or insist that other people be required to pretend a gay person's partner is the opposite sex.

I think that says all that needs to be said.

Trans people aren’t pretending .being trans isn’t a pretence . This is all misunderstanding.

Somebody on LinkedIn renamed the GLP the
Maugham Vanity Project under his post about this.

He's getting a lot of legal pushback on there.

Indeed it does. Disabled people's rights are not contingent.

Oh, really! And here we are, the stupid terven, clocking him and what he's up to...

👍🏻

Tbf "it's complex, that's the best I can do" just about sums up many many organisations' approach. But to say the Supreme Court should improve competency based on that...

I was happy to go along with trans advocacy when it was about wanting to be treated socially as the opposite sex, apart from where sex matters.

When the current definition arose - that TW are LITERALLY women, and
aways have been, because of what they're like as a person, and you need to bin your definition of "woman = female" (but we refuse to say what the new definition is!) and lesbians can be either sex attracted to either sex... that was when I started questioning the inherent misogyny and homophobia.

Yes, you have misunderstood what she said.

She said "or insist that other people be required to pretend a gay person's partner is the opposite sex."

Honestly, considering your entire reason for being here on your high horse is the apparently poor drafting of guidance, your own standards are pretty low really.

@potpourree id honestly be really happy to send you something I wrote explaining what being trans is and the terminology. I promise you that- although these things are complicated - they are not unable to be understood or defined and they have nothing to do with misogyny or homophobia.

"independently" doing a lot of work there...

That's a really interesting question. To claim special rights as a member of a minority group it's first necessary to self-identify as a member of that group. It's hard to demand the right to use a disabled toilet without "outing" yourself as disabled. When a lesbian attends a lesbian social event, that's a fairly "outing" thing to do.

Why do trans people get to claim special rights, without having to self-identify as trans?

So is it right, or wrong, to say that anyone using the male loos, because they are male, is a man?

We get told off for that yet some TRAs say this repeatedly when arguing how bad the situation is.

Why not post it here?

I understood. The implication being that we have set up a whole system of social organisation allowing trans people to pretend to be who they are not. But that is not what being trans is. Trans people are not pretending. They really are trans,that does not mean they require outing.

Because it would be outing and it was that pp who was asking about definitions of gender; sex and transness

Ah. Are you a writer of some kind then?

Ah well, the incoherence is interesting for a while but it gets a bit sad and desperate before long.

Feel free, although I agree it would be better to post it here.

There have been hundreds of posts assuming that when you say "trans" it's the commonly used current meaning of "individuals whose gender identity differs from, or is not comfortable with, the sex they were assigned at birth".

So would obviously be useful to correct that.

Would your concept be simple enough that an 8yo could use it to identify whether they were a boy or a girl, and/or if they are transgender or not? If it's just metaphysical or circular stuff (eg a woman is anyone who feels like a woman) then I won't be able to understand it

You deliberately altered the wording.

Trans people are genuinely trans, which means they are pretending to be the opposite sex.

An 8 year old wouldn’t understand it no. 😬 I’d be interested in feedback on how accessible it is.

But they aren’t pretending to be the opposite sex. The “being the opposite sex” is the very thing that makes them trans. The two can’t be separated and it’s not a pretence.

Re: numbers, I know there is concern about the reliability of the census data, but using data from people who actually specified a gender identity, a third answered that they are non binary, or have a gender identity that isn't man or woman.

It therefore seems clear that a very significant number of trans people are neither trying to pass as the opposite sex, nor hiding the fact that they are trans.

Also, that if the goal is trans inclusion, it's not clear how they are helped by masculine/feminine gender segregation.

Just because someone is non binary doesn’t mean they are out?