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/

Christ. We had this before. At least then it was confined to some transwoman's pervy fantasy.

JM appears to be taking those things seriously

Well, Mridul Wadhwa will want a word with Tandora then

Have you discussed your plans with the men you are talking on behalf of because they will not accept that.

They expect 100 percent access to everything all the time and will bully relentlessly till they get it.

So your non validating options are your own naive fantasy.

Go and ask them. See how you get on with your ideas.

No I don't. Anywhere that is women only is a target.

But on a day-to-day level, lots of these men don't get aerated about those things.

But toilets, yes. Hence the massive explosion after the ruling.

i've seen quite a few men 'willing to concede prisons and refuges'.

They mean, as long as they can keep toilets.

Toilets are something used every day, everywhere. The issue, and therefore the validation, is there all day every day.

But no, I completely agree, that everything women only is targeted.

Sorry @Datun. I should have tagged Tandora into my questions in my last paragraph.

You know that's not always true.

And you used to get deleted for generalisations.

No worries. (i did think to myself, I'm sure I've been clear about this before!!)

The judges absolutely did not say that would be incoherent. This is the over interpretation of the judgement that’s a real problem.

The judges were simply interpreting the use of words in the act. They were asked what “sex” means as a word when used in the EA 2010.

But again those men and their supporters fail to understand how exemptions/exceptions (I can never remember which) in the EA work. They can’t be female for toilets but male for prisons.

Also single sex toilet provision is relying on the single sex exemptions/exceptions. And therefore sex has to mean sex.

Only the terminally thick or deliberately obtuse can misinterpret this aspect of discrimination law.

Bottom left there looks like he bought a third fake boob and put it on his head.

"Judges in the Supreme Court rejected Scottish ministers’ interpretations that trans women do count towards quotas, saying this would create unequal sub-groups among transgender individuals based on whether they hold a GRC. The court said such interpretations would be unworkable and infringe on the rights of others, including those with same-sex attraction.

It concluded that a biological definition of sex is essential for the proper functioning of key provisions in the Equality Act—such as those relating to single-sex spaces, services, sports, communal accommodation, and charities.

Interpreting sex based on GRC status would lead to legal incoherence and practical difficulties, the court said."

just google Supreme Court ruling and the word incoherent

@Tandora
It’s sufficient to allow people to determine which service is appropriate for them.

the problem is that if you do open up sex separated areas a lot of people from different walks of life will determine that sadly there are no services available to them, and therefore they can’t take part in society. Literally erasing them.

They don't care that it's the law. And they don't care that it's in
coherent and unworkable.

They want what they want.

And up till now they've had it through dominance.

They want to go back to that

edited to add and that's why you won't ever get a sensible answer. There isn't one

The SC ruling concluded that any interpretation other than one based on biological sex would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate. Therefore, the guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers, which FWS was challenging, was incorrect.

i.e reference to sex in the EA is biological sex. Male and female toilet provision relies on the single sex exemptions in the EA. You cannot discriminate against men without trans identity to allow men with trans identities in.

I don't know how good Jolyon was as a tax lawyer, but looking at his Bluesky on and off tells me more that I ever wanted to know about his weird imagination.

You cannot discriminate against men without trans identity to allow men with trans identities in.

that's the ruling in a nutshell.

And the bit about lesbians, of course.

but the pushback you get is, you don't even know we're in there, or you can't stop us because it's not policed, or you'll lose all your provision if you enforce that, and everyone else agrees with us (despite the violence, moobs, pissing and, er, photos).

unfortunately for them, the jig is up.

See Robin Moira Wright actually in the House of Commons and the apology to the women whose toilet it is

Yep. Unequal.

meaning one group of people get additional provileges that no one else gets.

Did we get an explanation as to why this is considered appropriate for society?

i noticed it has also become clear that White followed those two women into the toilet, fully knowing who they were.

That was indeed a power transgression of boundaries.

We don’t get explanations for anything @Helleofabore because “complicated”

Same old same old. Been there done that.

Nobody mentions clownfish any more.

Yep, I’m an amateur at this in comparison to many amazing posters here at FWR. I don’t know how you all manage not to lose your shit on a daily basis. Especially in this heat 🥵

The judgement was about what specific words mean in the context of the EA 2010 as it is currently written. That is all. It does not make any statements about what a coherent policy would be , or how policy can or could or couldn’t be organised . Or what biological sex is or anything else.

Its really really important people understand this.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

no it isn’t.