SNP LGBT "wing" say Sandie Peggie decision means trans women can use females facilities

[deadpan]

OFI (Out For Independence) says the judges ruling in Sandies tribunal case means that trans people can carry on using facilities for the sex they want to be, not the sex they are. FFS

www.thetimes.com/uk/scotland/article/sandie-peggie-ruling-backs-trans-access-to-female-spaces-says-snp-group-j2zfwsx9r

What’s the point in having male and female changing areas then? They should either all be unisex with proper lockable floor to ceiling cubicles, or the bloody emperor and his fecking entourage go back to school and learn about biological fact. It’s absolutely rage inducing that supposed medics don’t know the difference between male and female. Total @@@#@#
the lot of them.

Well, they're wrong, as usual.

No cocks in my block.

They really are hardcore about stripping women's rights and endangering children, aren't they?

Until the woman complains.

Then the man has to be immediately removed.

And they have three weeks to sort separate provision.

I'll bet they didn't bother with that bit through not liking it, but if they want to go with that judgment, there it is.

And it's all nonsense anyway as many are pointing out, as this panel seem to have gone with a legal strategy called Making Stuff Up, while ignoring the Supreme Court.

So a) this isn't going to stand for long

and

b) it still says women get single sex facilities, it's just invented a few minor hoops to jump first. Fine. I'll happily jump. Bring on my man-free facilities please according to my article 8 rights, as stated by Judge Kemp.

Lots of organisations have been saying this before this case anyway. I won't/can't stand. The ruling contradicts both itself and the SC ruling. The case also doesn't set any president on its own so from that perspective going to appeal would actually be a win for the GC side as it would strengthen the case.

The Darlington nurses case, which imo an even stronger case is likely to win also.

F*cking idiots

doesn't set any president

Off topic, but I clearly haven't had nearly enough to eat today because when I read it I thought, "Ooo, I quite fancy some brie..."

Back on topic, the mighty Ben Cooper will make mincemeat (yep, still hungry) from this stupid excuse for a judgement. Roll on the appeal!

I just caught up on today's ongoing fucking up of that judgment....

bloody hell.

It's not worth toilet paper at this point.

I wonder if AI came up with the fantasy hoop jumping process as well as the fictional quotes and legal judgment quotes re written to mean something else?

IKR, it makes me wonder if the judge found something that looked offical while 'researching' but it was AI generated. I'm sceptical whether he would have the idocy to deliberately generate it himself. That or perhaps a junior staff member was involved?? I live in hope that our judges are better then this!

Im also baffled by the continuous mentioning that DU 'appears' female. DU testified himself that he had been misgendered by patients, presumably on sight! But judge sees long hair and make up and decide 'looks like a woman to me' and stuff teh rest of us and our womanly perceptions.

Yes until a woman complains. And if they say TW can use the female changing room without first asking the women then they are open to a harrasesment charge. And what if all the women said OK but later a woman came along and objected? I can't see how they can allow TW to use female changing rooms under these conditions.

They can do one . That is not what the law says.

Absolute wankers.

Lol…

"However, the tribunal panel has said it does not feel trans women are more of a risk.

It stated: "Having read all of the documents, there is very far from sufficient reliable evidence to establish as a fact that a trans woman who is legally and biologically male is a greater risk to any person assigned female at birth within a changing room environment at a workplace than another woman assigned female at birth."

It's bizarre.
There were numerous either typos or incorrect copying/citing of cases. Only one got addressed and that had consequences for a later section that relied on that bit having said what it originally did, which is now nonsensical.

(BTW I'm only interested in discussing this with truthful people that have understood what's going on or are interested in understanding it)

I’m going contact every organisation I visit, lodge my complaint pre-emptively and give them three weeks notice to sort male free facilities.

Then they’ll be sorted for when I get there.

So what? it's not about risk, it's about the SC ruling and the principle that single sex spaces should be segregated on the basis of biological sex.

It doesn't matter how lovely the transwoman is, or how ladylike the judge found DrU to be with his earrings and makeup and hairdo, or what a gentleman your Nigel is, they are male, and they have no right to be in a space designated for women.

And your point is?
Single sex spaces are single sex spaces whether or not someone is a "threat"

Doesn't sound like it. Sounds more like its up to the discretion of the provider as always suspected.

it's about the SC ruling and the principle that single sex spaces should be segregated on the basis of biological sex.

Yes - and a fair bit of the judgement WAS about the SC ruling and this principle.

This bit 'about' the SC ruling was very bizarre:
"... the decision states "Such women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users..." "

But the original version of that line from the actual SC decision is very different, saying “trans women” rather than “women”, and going on to make an extremely significant point about men without GRCs (like Upton) not being entitled to access female spaces, which the tribunal judge didn’t just edit out but also ignored in terms of his actual decision:

"Although such trans women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users, the Scottish Ministers do not suggest that a trans woman without a GRC is legally entitled to do so".

Surely even our most pig-headed critics (and trans Reddit is surely one, and they do) agree that the initial quoted section has a completely different meaning (and words) to the quote directly from the SC decision?

I've only just seen the Wings reference to 'Not For Gays' as an intervenor - so says SK's judgment! What is that and what is it meant to be?!

It's a mockery.

So you can rob a bank until someone complains?

Why should a woman have to complain. Isn't this just going to be a case of ending up back at square one? From what I've read here, every time a woman complains about a man in her space she's hauled over coals.

I thought that single sex spaces are law now. I know I'm not up to speed with everything (neurological problem, I can't absorb/retain information as I used to), but I thought this was sorted.

To read snippets here that say the judge thought a man was ladylike enough is unbelievable and makes me question myself!

"Such women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users..."

Not even sure what this would mean anyway. Wears a cloak of invisibility?; uses it when everyone has gone home?; sticks a note on the door saying 'warning! male present' ?