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

Mate. Do you grasp that the UK is not the US?

lol you really are a massive attention seeking tit aren't you

and also still 100% wrong

Apparently this is very difficult for the terminally hard of thinking

'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.'

The UK based wing are not able to include males in a 'women's organisation' without laying themselves open to legal action.

It's not a criminal matter, so 'arrest' is irrelevant, other than males trying to access women's services could be arrested for harassment.

This is why the' Women's Institute' is not allowed to include men:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e05130wyno

Exactly. I came on to say this. They state what GC people supposedly believe and then argue against it. And that seems so reasonable. Why would anyone care about a man who feels he’s a woman buying lipstick in Boots? How unkind of them to rail about it.

Except that no one is fighting against that. It’s not about destroying the rights of transgender people to exist. It’s about protecting the rights of women. Now they would argue that they are women. And that’s where we end up going round in circles.

The Supreme Court ruled is that if an organization wants to rely on the statutory "single-sex exception," it must define sex biologically.
This left organizations like Girlguiding and the Women's Institute with a choice:

Either: keep being inclusive, accept the legal classification of a "mixed-sex" organization, and update their charitable objects.
Or: exclude trans women in order to maintain their statutory "single-sex" legal shield.

They chose the latter and explicitly admitted they made the change due to a "risk of costly legal challenge and potential regulatory action from the Charity Commission". In other words, they did not kick out trans women because the Supreme Court legally mandated it, but used the Supreme Court ruling as a convenient PR scapegoat to wash their hands of the decision to deal with all the issues which would stem from keeping trans women in.

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.

No, the exceptions exist because women and men have rights, including single-sex rights for the purposes of safety, dignity, etc. The SC ruling did not clarify why we have these rights. It clarified that "sex" is biological. Thus if there are situations that are, for reasons of privacy and dignity, single-sex, the "sex" part has been clarified. But, I'm sure you've been told this before.

But organisations like WIA are not trying to invoke a legal exception to exclude trans women.
They are voluntarily choosing to include them.

They can't do this without changing their charter and constitution. At the moment they are for women, that means biological women only. They can change their constitution, but until then, the law applies.

"The UK government will not (and is currently not trying to) arrest their official UK-based Community Collective."

Well yes, any organisation can become fully mixed sex.

Well, is that yes or no?

ps. Thank goodness I live in the UK. It, apparently, could be much, much worse. Evidently.

If they meant female sex only, then yes.
But they mean female gender.
In the eyes of the UK law, sure, that's misleading, but it wouldn't result in their arrest or ban from UK.

This single sentence reveals a basic misunderstanding of important concepts like the distinctions between criminal and civil law, and government regulatory enforcement and actions in tort.

They could choose to become a mixed sex group, or stay single sex.

And men were surprised that a women's group chose the latter.

Imagine awful women going to all those lengths to keep women's organisations for women. It's like these bitches think they have human rights.

They chose the latter and explicitly admitted they made the change due to a "risk of costly legal challenge and potential regulatory action from the Charity Commission". In other words, they did not kick out trans women because the Supreme Court legally mandated it, but used the Supreme Court ruling as a convenient PR scapegoat to wash their hands of the decision to deal with all the issues which would stem from keeping trans women in.

You are saying that they had a choice to break the law or follow the law, and they flagrantly chose to follow the law.

I think your argument is that they could still admit men if they chose to, but there would be legal consequences and they actively chose to follow the law.

Getting echoes of the 'yes making spaces mixed sex may increase risks to women but men rape anyway so what's the point of trying to stop them' arguments beloved of so many TRAs.

You are saying that they had a choice to break the law or follow the law, and they flagrantly chose to follow the law.

Nicely put. What a cowardly decision!

I think MedicalConsensus is playing a game of Make Believe. And make-believes that his posts make-believe sense. He also clearly understands nothing about the SC ruling (or UK law in general).

@MedicalConsensus I read WIA as W1A and am now channelling Ian Fletcher.

Women in Animation looks a great organisation. Are they aware you appear to be representing them on a forum on a parenting site in the U.K.?

You can admit men or not but you can't admit 'special' men but bar other men. That is discrimination.

Alright, let's look at what would have happened if they decided to 'break the law':

An individual who felt disadvantaged or excluded could initiate a claim under the Equality Act 2010.
This would focuson on whether the organization's policy constitutes unlawful direct or indirect discrimination.

The Charity Commission may also step in, which may result in adjusting policies to avoid the risk of regulatory action or "potential regulatory action from the Charity Commission" if their actions are deemed inconsistent with their charitable objects or legal obligations.

In such cases, the courts would be tasked with determining if the organization’s policy was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim or if it breached the Act as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court has clarified that organizations have the option to restrict membership based on biological sex, but they are not mandated to do so in all contexts.

What would happen is getting into way too much trouble for what it's worth, yet it would have still been possible to battle it all, as they were not directly forced to make this decision.

For any organization, the reputational risk, even if they technically won in court, also often acts as a bigger deterrent than the legal action itself.

You're just spitting out bullshit AI responses.

We know what would happen, because it happened, you twit.

Yes, they could have attempted to argue wtih the Supreme Court judgment if they chose to do so.

In theory anyone can choose to try and argue with the law when they are taken to court.

It tends not to go down very well.

Until of course…. A man sues them for discrimination. If you’re going to include some men, you have to include all men who want to join. Just ask WI. And GG.

And a man was possibly going to sue them for discrimination, and ISTR they were pretty rattled by it. That was then superseded by the announcement they were kicking all the men out, funnily enough.

A rather excellent Mumsnetter and her husband did challenge the WI on this.

You cannot exclude any men on the grounds of sex if you let trans identifying men join your organisation for women and girls.

The WI and Guiding took legal advice and now (correctly) returned to being single sex.

True, they can.
It's up for the organisation to decide if they can win the case or not.
In the case of WIA, I don't think men can make a plausible case for discrimination, since animation has been male-dominated for a long time. Meanwhile, discrimination of trans women in animation is pretty well-known.