GLP v EHRC judgement - Thread 2

[Another2Cats]

This is a continuation thread from here:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5489699-glp-v-ehrc-judgement-is-coming-tomorrow?

That’s a really good example.

Associations, such as Girl Guides or the WI, are not relevant to this judgement.

Oh save me from giggly K Neves- RMW doesn't look impressed
Waffle waffle

RMW thinks everywhere should have single-gender toilets plus a Universal toilet for people whose religion requires it.

Who's up for starting a new religion?

yes but RMW is now pushing for his favoured solution:
men who think they're women can enter women's facilities
any women who have a problem with undressing in front of men like robin and katie can be offered a 'sensitive women' changing room or loo

[NB this option is beneath men who think they're women, who are very important and apparently hard to spot with normal eyesight]

NOTHING must stand in the way of the frisson of affirmation that the MEN require from entering a service signposted as WOMEN ONLY

Associations must follow the judgement too.

Strangely enough that is what has been suggested- a unisex loo that RMW and anyone else can use, plus female toilets.

I find this so funny. The third spaces point - which is the only rational, possible way forward - but trying to spin it as something different.

Frankly women needing single sex women's spaces wouldn't mind much if it was called the saggy titted bitch bigot ugly muppet bogs so long as there were no men in it, although it wouldn't go down well legally. But yes, it's the word 'woman' that really matters. The rage about there still having to be unconquered women in a space they cannot enter for reasons that must not be named,.... well at least we're reaching the acceptance part of that.

i am fascinated by the levels of denial going on
Why is a gender neutral loo unbearable for these men?

The claimed fear of being outed is silly: we can all see.

Yes. But the judgement is not relevant to who the associations allow to join.

A mixed bag.

The rage of their being unconquered women taking their clothes off without men present, with the legal right to say no and have boundaries from men. The desire to control and punish women is front and centre in so much written and mentioned by these men and activists.

The seeking of the height of 'validation' which let's be honest about it, involves sexual motivation for many, which requires the women who say no - the ones who will only undress and use those spaces with other women- to be there. They are the ultimate reward.

and there being in existence a space for women where they can't go, which emphasises the worst and most distressing point - that they can never be actual women. There will always be a difference, a bridge that cannot be crossed.

None of that though would stand up in court as a reason to remove women's equality of access and human rights.

He/she/they claim to be a "trans person"

But as a trans person, and someone fighting for the rights of my community, I refuse to remain silent.

https://goodlawproject.org/jess-othomson-trans-people-dont-trust-judges-and-theyre-right/

It is insofar as it restates the SC ruling that under the EA sex means biological sex, so if you are using the exemption to allow an association to be formed based on female sex then you can’t let men in regardless of how they identify. But as you say, this is just restating what the SC had already said.

The fact that even now, after the EHRC won the JR, Robin and Katie are still maintaining their entitlement to enter women only spaces is so disturbing.

This attempt at a Judicial Review was about a specific bit of the EHRC's interim guildance with regard to single sex spaces. Nothing to do with associations or their memberships.

The Judge is saying that, if someone does not rely on a SSE ( and Schedules 3 and 16 are both SSEs albeit operating in different ways) then a discrimination claim by the excluded men is not guaranteed to succeed, because it depends on the facts of the case.

He thought the possibility of such a claim was still important enough to remain in the guidance.

In practice, anyone providing only single-gender facilities can expect to get sued by somebody, if not aggrieved men then women pointing at the indirect sex-discrimination finding in the Darlington case.

So the safe thing to do is to copy slavishly the workplace set-up endorsed by the judge - genuine single-sex facilities plus provision for people whose beliefs require that they don't share with their own sex. This ruling tells us this is legal vis-a-vis all the PCs. So you're not risking a court case, just a few broken windows and a load of crickets through your letter box.

I hope enough service providers are sane enough to grasp this.

Because I am trying to keep everyone safe, I collate views of everyone.

Robin used to work on the railways before women had any toilet provision. Robin said the men had to go in and check the toilets before a woman entered. How ironic.

Robin also said in the past that gender neutral toilets are ghettos.

There’s no regulated ‘Gender neutral’ toilet design. Gender neutral IS unisex. Which is the universal design.

Robin doesn’t seem to get the fact that the women’s loo would all have to be the universal design. The only end point would be universal designs with different pictograms on the door.

Robin does say he’s been going round Parliament trying to get enhanced privacy. So I am presuming that means floor to ceiling cubicles and shared washbasins. Thats the common transactivist solution. That’s not a regulated design for mixed sex use. It’s a least bad for healthy men. That’s why men can’t see the health and safety implications.

They don’t get you would have to change the building legislation and British standards and even parts of the Sexual offences Act on exposure, voyeurism and what constitutes sexual activity in a toilet. Or it would mean the end of urinals and hundreds of thousands of cubicles would have to be reconfigured into separate rooms with sinks, dryers, vad alarms, extra ventilation. No government is going to do that to businesses.

I find it painful to think about the harm and cost of the TRA strategy to bring in self id and replace the sex category with gender categories and how things would / could have been so much better for so many if they had just accepted that sex matters and they needed to find a different way.

Over on Reddit the relatively common sense people are starting to talk about this now. There is some logic creeping through the cracks. They are saying if legislation is based on sex, not gender, and the GRA stated that a GRC was a change of legal sex, then shouldn't they call themselves transexual, not transgender. They are unhappy with the term transgender because it suggests that gender is different to sex.

However, they do also still say that sex is not something that can be defined so they've got a way to go yet. They are very muddled now they have to try and make sense of their own ideology.

It's fascinating to follow their discussions sometimes.

Which threads are those? The ones I’m reading the majority are arguing why they should be counted as “women” in the EA legally, because they’re foolish.

The mistake we made was allowing "trans people don't change their sex, they change their gender" to become mainstream understanding, not the distinction between sex and gender in the first place.

If anything, I think we should be separating "gender identity" and "gender expression"

https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1r660nn/equality_act_reassign_biological_sex/

They are unhappy with the term transgender because it suggests that gender is different to sex.

If gender wasn't different to sex, you would have eradicated trans people.
A trans person is someone whose gender (or gender identity) is different from (or doesn't align with/match/ correspond with etc) their sex.

If sex and gender are interchangeable terms, there would be no trans people.

They have maintained that this is the definition (as opposed to someone who seriously wishes to be the opposite sex, or has gebder dysphoria), so if this is wrong, they need to rethink it, a bit like when they said 'oh, of course we don't think anyone is born in the wrong body...'

Gender expression is what you look like. Any services differentiating men and women based on superficial aspects of appearance is not going to help anyone!

Jolyon has previously admitted that he takes 10% of all funds raised to cover his personal expenses.
He has to keep the grift going
as its not like anybody else will pay him now.

That's why I think we should drop the self-description "transgender" and revert to "transsexual". I don't want to be a man with a woman's gender; I'm a woman, I fulfill women's gender roles, and I want a female sex.
That makes me a transsexual woman

It's very muddled as I said. This poster is saying drop the term transgender but also claims to be a woman through women's 'gender roles', whatever they are.

Was it Paul McCartney who said something about writing himself a pool? Maybe JM’s strategy is to to lose enough cases so he can campaign himself a pool.