Sarah Brown Why are UK trans people upset?

[IwantToRetire]

In threads about the impact of the Supreme Court ruling it has been mentioned that the only people actually impacted by this, ie that sex in the act means biology, are those people who have gone through the process of getting a GRC. ie all those who go one about having an identity or whatever, the ruling makes no difference to as they aren't recognised by any law.

https://www.libdemvoice.org/why-are-uk-trans-people-upset-78192.html

That's how I see it @deadpan - and Kite Trust has peddled unscientific gender woo as fact throughout schools & unis - I do wonder if they were involved with Cambs Council training and why they got sued by Lizzie Pitt.

SB has been busy since the "Aunty Sarah" (his Twitter handle) days on Twitter back in circa 2015.

"collated several thousand tweets talking about abuse of transgender patients that she alleges exposed "institutional transphobia" in the medical profession that "would be on the national news" if it "was happening to any other minority"
While I completely agree that issues of discrimination should be addressed, why aren't we able to collate several thousand tweets and allege they expose a worrying trend of misogyny? I mean, we do, but we aren't taken seriously, we're just called bigots.

Had Sarah Brown read the GRA (2004), it would have been obvious that the exceptions made it impossible to actually live as the opposite sex.

This was later re-enforced by the EA (2010).

In April of 2025 the state turned round and told me that I had been mistaken. That it never regarded me as female. That I was male the whole time.

I agree that the GRA legislation doesn't make much sense, but it's best to read the small print.

Also sport and parenting status and some crimes.

Enough things to make it clear that nobody believed a piece of paper could change somebody's sex.

"Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation."

I think this clearly indicates the conditions under which the GRA subsection 1 does not apply. Subsequent legislation, prior legislation and the GRA itself can constitute grounds for disapplying Subsection 1. It wasn't a secret. It was simply misrepresented for years.

Isn't this thread muddling Sarah Brown and Sarah Barker? The latter is he of the pickled balls.

No. Sarah Brown is very much a blast from the past - anyone in the GC Twitter crowd circa 2015 will remember he sent a tweet telling - saying suck my balls

I can’t help being influenced by reading Sarah Brown’s blog a few years ago, which I found genuinely frightening, though I don’t remember the details of why. And their initially successful push to change Cambridge’s understanding of the Equality Act to include gender identity rather than gender reassignment.

But on the terms of the article - yes I do get that the goalposts keep changing. SB transitioned long before the big surge in adolescent dysphoria/ female referrals. As they say, long before same sex marriage. One of the issues with the GRA for me is that the spousal exit clause does imply that there has been a sex change. It is quite old fashioned in that regard.

I don’t think we have seen even the beginning of the changes that the SC ruling will bring. RMW won’t be the only one attempting a rerun/revisit of the Goodwin case. But it might backfire; the Goodwin judgement was 27 years ago and reads now like it is from a different era. SB would like to hoard rights from that time that were based on the poor rationale that ‘it’s only a few people’. Maybe they’ll start wearing a dinosaur badge.

Most of the problem TRA face is of their own doing, though.

They only things someone need to get a GRC is to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, two years worth of id and, at the time of its introduction, a divorce if married. He chose to have surgery, it isnt part of the process.

So for the rest of the population, the person hasn't changed. There is no sex change.

And the rest of the country need to have single sex spaces.

If they made the conditions of getting a GRC that the applicant was always percieved to be the opposite sex, the arguments that single sex spaces had to be single sex would be harder to argue. And those with GRC may have been included in the opposite sex spaces.

But TRA made it into a admin process only. Why would spaces be needed for women and men with documentation? How could they be justified?

But it might backfire; the Goodwin judgement was 27 years ago and reads now like it is from a different era.

Would be an interesting time to stress article 8 right to privacy and a private life, given that the Labour government is increasingly frustrated by what it feels is its over wide application to asylum cases.

Oh “Aunty Sarah” who bludgeoned his way into an all women’s livejournal group years ago and made it all about him. Vile man.

Only if you bother to read the Act, you mean.

Which activities does Sarah think he is going to be arrested for, in that article?

There are a lot of people out there who have undergone various degrees of 'gender -re-assignment' on the back of a big wave of trans totalitarianism ( in which nobody was allowed to counter, to question or to disagree) who are finding that this has not turned out quite as they'd imagined it would; that it doesn't solve all of their issues; doesn't give them women's rights and protections ( if they are male) and that they cannot live in a bubble of 'trans euphoria' for ever. That's tough.......though it was always inevitable.

All of the cheerleaders and allies for this fad have total responsibility for their encouragement of indivuals who have gone on to adopt trans identities and have surgeries; and also for their abusive treatment of those who have spoken out.

No, JanesLittleGirl is right - the test that the judges applied is essentially does sex matter in this legislation? and if so, the GRA doesn't apply. That applies to any legislation, not just the Equality Act.

I’m not qualified to get into the woods of the scope of the SC but I’m trying to understand a situation where it would be legal to discriminate on the basis of sex (so ‘treat somebody as a woman’) that would be covered by other legislation but not covered by the EA?

I would have thought that e.g. the Workplace regs would be unlawful discrimination without the exemptions in the EA?

I’m not sure I understand your original post, @IwantToRetire - it seems to suggest the article will tell us why trans identifying people without a GRC might be upset, when Sarah Brown has a GRC?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, probably because IANAL, but the Workplace Regs are not unlawful discrimination because they say why the sexes must be segregated and provide for equal provision for both - is my guess.
But also as far as the EA goes, compliance with a law/legal duty requiring segregated facilities is always a legitimate aim.

My point was about the scope of the SC judgement.

I don’t understand how it’s possible to argue that the EA is a discreet thing that doesn’t affect other legislation, because I would have thought that any lawful discrimination must comply with the exceptions in the EA.

To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with you!

Not sure how you thought that, I said the opposite. ie that the supremem court ruling in terms of the law only impacts those who have gone throught the legal process of getting a GRC.

All the much wider "lifestyle" identities are the result of the TRA campaigns, misinformation etc..

And appreciate the author of this article isn't necessarily a sympathetic cause, but when you take into account that only around 10,000 people have GRCs it is really significant that all the fuss about toilets etc., are those who are still applying Stonewall "law".

I am just saying that the Supreme Court ruling was only in relation to the EA.

So obviously if another act refers to the terms of the EA then the definition of sex as biological is a factor.

This has come up on other threads, and dont think it worth going through all the variations of can you advertise events for specific groups but not refer to them as regulated by the EA.

I think the work place laws about toilets etc., were always clear about sex being sex, but in some eyes fell victim to Stonewall's law.

Schedule 22 provides an exemption from liability for illegal discrimination if the complained of act was required by another law (whether passed before or after EA2010). The Workplace Regulations would be an example, perhaps.

🎻

I remember that! Sooo ladylike. Well, one of his constituents had irritated him, so he had to post an obscene insult online. As we laydeez always do.