Excluding trans people won't stop you getting sued

[Greyskybluesky]

...says the GLP.

"This week, both Girl Guiding and the Women’s Institute announced their intention to exclude trans women and girls. They say this is because of the ruling of the Supreme Court earlier this year on the meaning of sex under the Equality Act 2010. Both have said that they do not want to exclude trans people – but feel that they have been forced to by legal threats."

The GLP has spotted a money making opportunity wants to support women’s organisations who want to remain trans inclusive, and thinks the law is on their side.

Is the law on their side?

https://goodlawproject.org/excluding-trans-people-wont-stop-you-getting-sued/

Sorry, forgot to add this bit:

"we would like to bring legal proceedings against them" [GG, WI. etc]

The GLP claims the law has been misunderstood. Has it been?

I don't think the GLP understands the law better than the Supreme Court, no

The GLP definitely understands how to get attention, get money from people they have whipped into an emotional frenzy and keep themselves in the news though

This would be the same GLP that keeps losing?
The law has been misunderstood many times, by the GLP, according to their legal track record.
GLP vs Supreme Court of the UK, hummm what a difficult choice.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

I'm finding the reporting on this so frustrating. The comments on social media are awful- what are girls doing at guides that they can’t do with boys there, etc.

Basically a big chunk of the population doesn’t think women should be allowed to meet without men, doesn’t see a need for it. Such a shame.

The GLP think the law only applies to represenration of women on boards and that it has been misapplied. They haven't read or understood the judgement. They are absolute clowns.

Unless you're allergic to nuts.
My lovely friend had a phrase - if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle. We had to update it to - if my aunt had wheels she'd be a bicycle.

Edited - my internal voice rejected the accent.

We all know how much credibility the kimono-clad fox killer has.

Nothing stops anyone getting sued. Win or lose they can sue.

If WI and Girl Guides wanted to avoid being sued then they might have done better to point out that they are still trans inclusive because - ta-daa! - female people with trans identities are still able to join.

And I do hope that the BBC (what with their commitment to inform people and to be impartial) have pointed this out, even if WI and GG haven't explained it properly themselves.

Last month they were arguing that it wasn’t legal for Virgin to have single sex changing rooms. Have they given up on that one?

Is your friend Italian?

I am finding it hard to follow the line of argument in the GLP link I posted in the OP.
I thought it was me.
But perhaps it isn't!

edited to add: I'm not a lawyer, I think that's obvious!

They're not excluding trans people from joining though, they maintain they are single sex services and if they want to be able to make that claim, they need to exclude males only. Males are excluded from joining. Female transgender applicants would be welcome to join so where is the trans discrimination?

😁

It's total mis-representation. They are not excluding trans people (ie people with the protected characteristic of gender re-assignment) - they are excluding males.

This is entirely legal as a proportionate aim.

What isn't legal is allowing some males, but not others.

You can have groups who combine protected characteristics - eg. Black Lesbians, Pregnant Buddhists, but you can't select disconnected ones - eg. males with gender re-assignment and females without it - groups which have no commonality of characteristics on which to base the legitimate aim of excluding others without it.

GLP want to argue that males can be women. Bring it on I say.

Exactly.

The GLP cannot even manage to use precise, non-confusing language in their own article.

They refer to "trans people" throughout, but it is clear the organisations they are talking about are women's/girls' organisations that are seeking to exclude male people. Female trans people are not excluded.

Some suckers will contribute to the GLP's grift. The GLP's patsy will lose. Jolyon and his pals will be quids in.

Same as it always was.

I think the GLP is just an exercise in extracting as much money from trans people as possible.

Lots of trans people want to believe that the PC of GR makes men women. Or that a GRC changes a persons sex.

These things can never happen.

If an organisation can argue that the service they provide needs to be single sex, they cant then allow some people of the opposite sex to use service. It makes the first argument- that single sex is proportional, invalid.

Trans reddit cant decided whether they are the most marginalised in society, or there is so much love for them that these organisations wont survive without them and their supporters.

Excluding trans people won't stop you getting sued

Which is expensive. But it will stop you losing in court. Which is even more expensive.

They’re wrong, it really is not a very complex point of law to understand that if you exclude men but allow in men who say ‘I identify as a woman’ then you are discriminating against men who don’t say the magic words, and that type of discrimination is unlawful. GG and WI could have opted to allow in all males and make their organisations mixed sex, but they didn’t want to do that and they didn’t have to do that. GLP are grifters and grifters gonna grift.

I don’t know about the legalities, but they aren’t excluding trans people are they?

Trans boys are welcome to join the Guides, as are biologically female non-binary people.

GLP just seem to exist to keep some lawyers employed. Winning doesn’t seem very important.

Take it to court, please. It needs to be tested and proven.

There is nothing to stop anyone running mixed sex facilities if they want to.

The law means that if you choose to name your service or resource for women using the single sex exception (legal discrimination) you cannot then make it also open to some men but not others.

This is really clearly explained in the SCJ.

This is so that women CAN HAVE single sex resources and facilities where they need them, following a whole lot of unpleasantness and difficulty caused by trans activists and men.

It is hopeful we've gone from 'all women's resources are for men and you can't stop it or we'll sue' to 'some women's resources can be for men if they want or we'll sue'. I suppose that's progress. But the point of the judgment was to permit and protect single sex spaces and resources.

Why can't these people just accept the reality that male humans, under no circumstances can become female and therefore will never be women and so must by the law be excluded from female single sex spaces. So typically misogynist to make veiled threats at women and girls trying to carve out some female only space in the world.

I'm not aware of any case GLP has won for trans-ideology. but they are really good at fund raising for these cases.