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/

I didn’t understand this

I suspect you're just playing at being stupid. Trans people are not, either in fact or law, the opposite sex. They have the biology and physiology of their birth sex, and it's a physical impossibility to change that.

You have said that you are on ADHD medication. And have admitted that you are obsesses with this thread. And that you hoped that the medication would kick in so you would be less obsessed with this thread.

And you now don't seem to be able to understand posts.

So yeah, I'm disengaging with you, for your own sake.

I think we need to disengage.

Their claims (to be of the opposite sex to their natal sex) are the very essence of pretence, as they cannot be materially or legally true, even if they genuinely believe them to be.

And yet Jolyon Maugham is busy campaigning for his teenage daughters to use the male toilets.

If JM deems the men’s safe for his female children, what makes it unsafe for adult males?

people keep saying “in law”- what do they mean by this? The SC judgement was limited to interpreting the use of language in the EA 2025 it by no means undoes the gender recognition act which determines legal sex/gender .

WTF. Ok I don’t normally report posts but this has crossed the line. I shall not be engaging with you further.

OMG. I am so sorry. I think I got you mixed up with a poster on another thread.

My bad. So sorry.

Report away! Not acceptable by me.

oh ok no worries . Yeh that did massively confuse me!

It said that the possession of a GRC is immaterial and that in any situation where the EA applies, many of which have been discussed exhaustively on here, sex means biological sex (i.e. sex at conception, observed in utero, at birth, wherever).

The law recognizes only two sexes, male and female.

Aside from the few people with a GRC (and even they, for proceedings under the EA 2010) everyone maintains the sex of their birth in any legal proceedings.

This is neither new or contestable.

That's what I mean by "in law".

Yes for the purposes of understanding protections under the EA - “sex” as used in the statute , means “birth sex”, this means that people female at birth have separate protections from trans people who are protected by gender reassignment. That does not mean that trans women are not legally women- cannot change their legal sex. They can and they are legally women* if they possess a GRC.

The Supreme Court was very clear on that, they were also very clear that they were not making any judgements about what “sex” actually is/ means, they were just interpreting the use of words in the EA 2010,

Really important people understand this,

Right- so as you acknowledge trans people can in fact change their sex in law. So these absolutisms about law are false:

So , now to the “material”…

It means, simply, that transwomen cannot use single sex facilities or services designated for women.

I think that’s easy enough to understand.

I agree that under the terms of the GRA, there are certain situations where in law a trans person with a GRA is recognized as a member of the opposite sex. It literally says so in the statute. We can argue the number and extent of those situations, and whether that's a good idea, but neither of us can disagree that's what the law says. I don't think that's the gotcha that you think it is, though.

That does not mean that trans women are not legally women- cannot change their legal sex.

They want to change their legal sex?

But you just said they're not pretending to be the opposite sex.

Trying to see how you parse that distinction.

A kid trying to get served in a pub with ID giving a changed birth date isn't "pretending to be old enough" - he's simply "changed his documented age"?

I don’t actually agree that it was intended to mean that: I think it was intended to permit that trans women could be excluded from services designated for (birth sex) women, where proportionate/ legitimate as has always been the law (eg rape crisis support). This is reasonable.

The ruling has been widely interpreted (including in the guidance) as mandating the exclusion of trans women from all services designated for women , which is not reasonable. I do not believe this is what the court contemplated.

The ruling has been widely interpreted (including in the guidance) as mandating the exclusion of trans women from all services designated for women , which is not reasonable.

It's been "widely interpreted" like that because that's what it explicitly says, very simply, and it explains why. Try reading it.

Once again: if you don't mandate the exclusion of all trans women from a women's service, it's no longer a women's service, and the organizer of the service is failing to comply with the EA 2010, and in legal jeopardy.

Which section of the judgement led you to believe that, Tandora?

I understand the logic. I do not agree with it,

It doesn't matter if you agree with it or don't agree with it.

The reason that it's difficult for some to grasp (not necessarily you) is that the language of the EA is about inclusion. The general purpose of the act is preventing people from being unlawfully excluded.

The ability to lawfully provide a women-only service is a carefully crafted exemption from the general rule that excluding men is unlawful. The exclusion of trans-women isn't explicit in the act ("don't include trans women") but it's the only way, if the law is to be complied with.