Article on "arguing with a TERF"

[MyAmpleSheep]

I love to keep up with the other side, so here's a lot of words just to say "it's complicated." meanwhile he ignores the obvious answer to his own question.

www.fasttrackfemme.com/p/why-you-cant-win-an-argument-with

Completely incorrect from top to bottom, mate.

In the UK, an organisation cannot invoke the single sex exceptions unless it bases this on biological sex.

https://supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2024-0042

Read this. It's very clear and easy to understand.

'As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be interpreted as referring to biological sex [168]-[172]. For example, the provisions relating to pregnancy and maternity (sections 13(6), 17 and 18 of the EA) are based on the fact of pregnancy and giving birth to a child. As a matter of biology, only biological women can become pregnant. Therefore, these provisions are unworkable unless “man” and “woman” have a biological meaning [177]-[188].
Interpreting “sex” as certificated sex would cut across the definitions of “man” and “woman” and thus the protected characteristic of sex in an incoherent way [172].
It is important that the EA 2010 is interpreted in a clear and consistent way in order that groups which share a protected characteristic can be identified by those that the EA 2010 imposes obligations on so that they can perform those obligations in a practical way [151]-[154].'

Thanks. Trying to eat brunch.

I'll add a bit more, because it's fantastic. From the press summary:

'A certificated sex interpretation would also create two sub-groups within those who share the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans people who possess a GRC greater rights than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the EA 2010 would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups, particularly since they could not ask whether someone had obtained a GRC as that information is private [198]-[203].
A certificated sex interpretation would also weaken the protections given to those with the protected characteristic of sexual orientation for example by interfering with their ability to have lesbian-only spaces and associations [204]-[209].
Additional provisions that require a biological interpretation of “sex” in order to function coherently include separate spaces and single sex services (including changing rooms, hostels and medical services) [211]-[221], communal accommodation [222]-[225], and single sex higher education institutions [226]-[228]. Similar confusion and impracticability arise in the operation of provisions relating to single sex characteristic associations and charities [229]-[231], women’s fair participation in sport [232]-[236], the operation of the public sector equality duty [237]-[244], and the armed forces [245]-[246].
The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct [247]. The Court rejects the suggestion of the Inner House that “woman” and “sex” can refer to biological sex in some sections of the EA 2010, and certificated sex in others. The meaning of “sex” and “woman” must be consistent throughout the EA 2010 [189]-[197].
The Court concludes that the provisions of the EA 2010 discussed above are provisions to which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate [264]. Therefore, a person with a GRC in the female gender does not come within the definition of a “woman” under the EA 2010 and the statutory guidance issued by the Scottish Ministers is incorrect [266].'

No they haven’t managed to sort doors out that are full height. They are more problematical.

You see it’s built into British Standards that there needs to be a way of getting in to toilets because of the safety problems when people collapse. People normally collapse on to the door. Thats why automatic doors open after 15 minutes. Or not.

Theres a funny account I have heard about the town mayor opening a new superloo. There was a congregation standing outside but the doors wouldn’t open. It locked everytime they tried to open it. When the door finally opened, two men sheepishly stepped out.

Here is a brand new unisex toilet with a dodgy door:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-stuck-inside-locked-public-35746932.amp
Note the concerns of people. Luckily her partner was with her to call the fire brigade.

The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct [247]. The Court rejects the suggestion of the Inner House that “woman” and “sex” can refer to biological sex in some sections of the EA 2010, and certificated sex in others. The meaning of “sex” and “woman” must be consistent throughout the EA 2010

That is the creepiest thing I have seen in a VERY long time! (100 times creepier than the last creepy gif I saw, the weird talking bacon). Again. Please. Trying to eat over here!

Some of us are just bored. And ill. And trying to eat something. 😁

I make it a point to never argue with @Keeptoiletssafe about toilets, Medical. You're on a hiding to nothing.

And here is our EHRC's guidance on the SC judgment.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-2010-draft-code-of-practice-for-services-public-functions-and-associations-2026

'Sex

What the Act says

2.87 Sex is a protected characteristic and refers to a male or a female of any age. In relation to a group of people it refers to either men and / or boys, or women and / or girls (section 11(a) and (b) and section 212, paragraph 1).
2.88 The Supreme Court in For Women Scotland ruled that ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in the Act mean biological sex, biological woman and biological man. The judgment uses the expression ‘biological sex’ to describe the sex of a person at birth. Earlier case law [footnote 12] has set out the indicators of biological sex.
2.89 A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the Act. Read paragraphs 2.49 to 2.53 for more information on GRCs. Read paragraphs 13.161 to 13.182 for more information about when and how it may be appropriate to request information or evidence of the sex of a person at birth.
2.90 A comparator for the purposes of showing sex discrimination will be a person of the opposite sex. Sex does not include gender reassignment (read paragraphs 2.49 to 2.53) or sexual orientation (read paragraphs 2.92 to 2.96).'

Thank you @JanesLittleGirl, words out of my mouth (or off my keyboard).

'2.88 The Supreme Court in For Women Scotland ruled that ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in the Act mean biological sex, biological woman and biological man. The judgment uses the expression ‘biological sex’ to describe the sex of a person at birth. Earlier case law [footnote 12] has set out the indicators of biological sex.
2.89 A Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) does not change a person’s sex for the purposes of the Act.'

My bolding.

Women's rights are for women

Women are biological women only. Men are not entitled to use women's spaces, or the women within them, for validation, or safety, or to soothe their hurt feelings.

This is clear and settled in law and guidance.

For anyone still struggling the tl:dr version is:

If you say something is for women it has to mean biological women.

you're actual heroines Arabella and Marie, and ones with apparently infinite patience. I'm afraid I reach the 'stop reading the nonsense and start posting amusing gifs' stage waaaay earlier than you and the other awesome posters on this thread

Women's spaces and services are for women.

Men are not entitled to use them.

Amusing gifs are equally valid, Bernard.

my amusing gifs identify as cogent and rational arguments

I beg to differ.

Did you get this incorrect understanding of the law from AI? Go into your sources and block anything from The Good Law Project (an oxymoron). Thank me later.

I am just trying it in different variants, larger fonts, with bolding, etc. I haven't yet started mining expressive gifs.

But its important that we communicate it in ways that everyone can understand.

Sorry to quote myself but I wanted to clarify for our American visitor that this refers to UK law.

I can't speak for American law because you lot have allowed a different flavour of self centered, egotistical, man baby who only sees women as props in his (different) game to make the laws over there.
So much for checks and balances.

"Sex" is defined as biological sex, yes.
If an organization wishes to invoke a statutory single-sex exception, they must base it on biology.
The single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act exist to provide a legal shield for organizations that want the right to exclude the opposite sex.
But organisations like WIA are not trying to invoke a legal exception to exclude trans women.
They are voluntarily choosing to include them.

Whether the UK legal system technically categorizes them as a "mixed-sex" organization, they are still a female-led organization exercising their freedom to associate and define their own community standards.
The Supreme Court ruling is about a statutory exception designed for exclusion, not about forcing private, independent groups to stop being inclusive.

"allows for an association to restrict membership".
It allows them to restrict it. It does not mandate it.

If WIA wants to operate as a legally "mixed-sex" organization that focuses on women and trans women in animation, the UK government will not (and is currently not trying to) arrest their official UK-based Community Collective.

One would think this was not contentious.

In fact, the Scottish government, and trans identifying men, including the head of a rape service who says he's a woman, actually tried to fight this in court?

Men in favour of genderwhang argued that a rape survivor should not be able to exclude men from treating her if said men had identified as women.

This caused a huge great stooshie at the time.

I'm looking back on the past few years with a mix of horror and disbelief.

https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,six-little-words-for-the-word-gender-substitute-sex