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/

No idea why you think this is funny

.

I think you pretend not to understand @Tandora

single sex toilets rely on words (that have definitions) in the EA 2010

Those words mean that single sex toilet provision is done in the basis of biological sex. Not biological sex for one group and gender identity for some.

of course you know why it’s funny! You cannot seriously expect us to believe that you don’t understand why your alleged interpretation is not only wrong but also incoherent.

Yes, mystification and obfuscation are what genderism thrives on.

It absolutely isn’t. To repeat.

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.

It’s really really important people understand this.

The actual judgement clearly stated that provisions for single sex services could only be used by persons born of the designated sex, and they used examples of changing facilities, toilets, sport etc.

Yeh, and nothing could possbly go wrong in a. society predicated on catering to every individuals personal feelings, even when they run counter to observable reality and other people's rights.

Are you genuinely expecting us to believe that single sex provisions relying on the wording in the EA 2010 don’t actually mean single sex?

The judges absolutely did say that taking 'Sex' to mean 'Gender Identity' would make the workings of the equality act incoherent and unworkable. And they gave multiple examples of how and why.

I don’t think you understood what I wrote. Maybe read it again. Or don’t . But there’s really no point in a conversation otherwise.

they said it would make the meaning of the current wording/ provisions in the EA 2010 incoherent , not that this definition of sex would be incoherent per se. Read the judgement. They are not making statement about what words mean or could mean in general or how policy could be organised differently. They were just interpreting the use of language/ words in the EA 2010.

Oh so now you want to change the meaning of “sex” itself?

What do you think is meant by provisions in the EA 2010?

Accepting that it is absolutely true that Trans people are not men dressing up as women and they are not perverts. Nor are they “invading” female spaces. Trans people are a-ok. They are who they say they are - without arguing with that, can I just clarify - obviously perverts, abusers, men dressing as women for the thrill of it (without having a feminine identity) and men who want to ensure that there is nowhere women can be that is away from them, do exist - are you saying that there can be no safeguards, barriers or systems that protect women from these men? Or do you have a workable proposal for how to have those protections in a trans-inclusive way?

I listened to the judgement live as it happened, as well as having read it again since. I understand what they said, and what they meant.

You are grasping at staws here. It would be better for your mental health to accept the limits and scope of the concept of 'gender identity' and just get on with your life. You'll find it is not so bad after all. You still have civil rights and certain protections, but you don't have, and can't have , that which does not belong to you, but which was created for the dignity and safety of certain others.

All of this catastrophising is not healthy.

They understood that 'Sex' has a common and universal understanding.......and that laws have been written in reference to, and to serve, that common understanding.

'Certificated Sex' was created as a concept when creating provisions for' Gender Re-assignment' - but it does over-rule or over-ride the commonly understood maening or definition of 'Sex'. Sex has always referred to biology, and it still does.

Is that right?

That's an entirely different flavour to the way he framed it which made it look like they'd followed him and started shouting

Or what biological sex is or anything else.

It's really really important that people understand that the court was 100% clear on what biological sex is.

The way to determine someone's sex has been defined in law since Corbett vs. Corbett in 1970.

The SC was entirely clear in it's judgment - section 1, entitled "terminology", paragraph (7):

We also use the expression “biological sex” which is used widely, including in the judgments of the Court of Session, to describe the sex of a person at birth, and we use the expression “certificated sex” to describe the sex attained by the acquisition of a GRC.

It's intentionally misleading people if not actually outright lying, to say the court was ambiguous about what "biological sex" means.

The system knowledge. What is system knowledge?

Gives meaning to sexual differences in bodies.

Okay. So you agree there are sexual differences in bodies. Good.

System knowledge that gives meaning to sexual differences in bodies.

Sorry, Tandora. I'm just not able to understand this. Can you explain it more clearly, please? Maybe with an example?

Sorry, is this a ten minute argument, or do you want the full half hour?

I'd say 'gender' is infinite. It's an arbitrary collection of shifting beliefs applied to sex. 'Boys like blue' or 'girls are gentle' or, variously, 'women should sacrifice themselves to men's wishes', 'women are second class humans' and 'women are worth less than men, and therefore their preference to have a male free space doesn't count'.

Ah yes, but what does biological mean? Plus what about person? I think certain companies can be legal people? Does that mean we need to find out the sex of a company at inception?

And as for the words judgment and including, well don't get me started.

I've only just now read their footer on the OP's link:

'Fascism feels close at hand. We want to defend trans people – and everyone it targets. Please, if you can, set up a monthly donation so we can fight for everyone. Every new monthly donor who signs up using this link will receive a signed copy of our founder’s best selling Penguin paperback ‘Bringing Down Goliath.’'

That's some mad sentence construction.

We want to defend trans people – and everyone it targets.

😶

Honestly. You'd have to laugh. Especially as it's offering to give you his free book!!