JKR offers to fund any nurse or female patient legal fees

[Imdunfer]

JKR, in the wake of health authorities failing to implement the single sex space laws, has offered to fund the legal case of any female nurse or patient who wants to sue their health authority.

I love that woman!

I know you're wrong! 🤷‍♀️

I'm afraid that the law isn't how you want it to be. I know, sad times. But you'll just have to cope in the single sex provision appropriate for your biological sex.

Oh the delusion of believing that if you shout loudly enough what you say can become fact - law…

there is no disadvantage to ‘trans’ people…
a ‘trans woman’ is a man and can use the male facilities
a ‘trans man’ is a woman and can use the female facilities

facilities for all - no discrimination

there is clear evidence that the only risk of violence is having men in women’s spaces (for clarity that means having a man pretending to be a woman in women’s spaces or for clarity ‘trans women’ in women’s spaces rather than in their own male spaces)

we also see in this debate only one cohort threatening violence - surprise surprise it is some of those from the ‘trans women’ cohort - ie men - not seeing any examples of women threatening violence in this debate…

so sticking to the law simply prevents any risk of that violence:
men and that includes ‘trans women’ into men’s facilities
women and that includes ‘trans men’ into women’s facilities

no prejudice / all treated equally / reduced risk of violence

those demanding ‘third spaces’ etc will simply cost the NHS (and others) more money - not needed, we have two types of space for the two sexes that exist

those worried about possible cost ‘coming up to winter’ - simple, the NHS can comply with the law that has been in place for about 15+ years - they have had plenty of time…

if all of this costs money for the NHS then responsibility for that must be placed firmly in the laps of those who started the nonsense that anyone can change sex - which we all know is impossible and doctors of all people should know better than others!

It's ok to admit I'm correct that you haven't read the actual law and wouldn't understand it if you did.

Although it is gratifying to see you simply parroting variants of my posts that make it abundantly and repeatedly clear that your interpretation of the law doesn't necessarily accord with the actual law and it's interpretation in a court.

So, thank you for your flattering imitation, but now try to think for yourself. We'll wait.

Just how much more clarity is needed?

Let me clarify: she’s a wonderful, warm-hearted, smart, principled and generous woman whom I would be proud to know.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is such a fascinating phenomenon. Especially when coupled with projection!

It is clear from the SC ruling that any exclusion of a trans person from single sex services has to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Incorrect, in order to be able to use the single sex provisions on the EA one must first have a legitimate aim in providing a single sex service and then one must show that the method used to provide those services is proportionate. Once this is established then that service is provided on the basis of biological sex.

It's nearly always a legitimate aim to separate by sex in circumstances where a person will be in a state of partial undress, providing separate toilets is a proportionate means of achieving that aim.

In workplaces employers are obliged to provide single sex changing rooms under The Workplace Regulations and it was confirmed in a recent GLP case that sex means biological sex in the Workplace Regulations

This is hilarious, given my actual job.

I'd suggest you get back to reading the law and judgment for the first time and actually understanding what they mean.

Let’s not let facts get in the way of a good tantrum.

In workplaces employers are obliged to provide single sex changing rooms under The Workplace Regulations and it was confirmed in a recent GLP case that sex means biological sex in the Workplace Regulations

Yes, the GLP scored for women with this one. Oops! 😬 🤣

Obviously it's her money to do what she wants with, but it's a bit of a slippery slope. If you want to fund lawyers, why not fund them to get disabled children access to proper health, social and educational provision, for instance?

She has given away so much of her money she made herself not a billionaire at one point . She founded Lumos which is a charity for orphaned children, she provides all the funding for rape crisis centre Beira’s place. Her donations to MS research £25m I think) have transformed understanding and treatment of the disease.

she also thinks it is a good use of her post tax money to help women enforce their legal right to single sex spaces services and sports. Personally I think women being forced to undress in front of men in workplace changing rooms as a condition of their employment is horrifying and dystopian and am delighted she is helping them access justice.

Because, ultimately, it is HER money, that she earns through the work and world that SHE created.

Therefore, SHE has the right to choose what to spend it on.

Plus, she spends her money in all other sorts of causes, including funding the Anne Rowling Regenerative Neurology Clinic and helping over 100 Afghan female lawyers abd their families flee the Taliban.

More power to her elbow!

She already funds many other projects, Beiras Place, Lumos Foundation, Volant Charity, Anne Rowling clinic are the main ones.

I believe that your point 1 misses the discrimination against female people in removing their single sex provision. There is potential for harassment if a male person in a work situation continues to use a female single sex provision.

And point 2 is a misrepresentation as you again are either relying on your point 1 which ignores other discrimination and /or is again relying on ‘criminal law’ being the only type of law that should be adhered to.

On point 3, I think you might find that equally a male person could be considered harassing female occupants by being there and could also find themselves facing a judge.

Point 4, great it is a democratic country and it is right to challenge something that a person feels they want clarified and remediated. Doesn’t mean those challenges will matter much, because the law has been clarified.

And the last one is actually not backed up by evidence and becomes irrelevant because female people have the same argument based on any male person over about 8years old who cannot respect safeguarding policies and the law. However, female people’s single sex provisions are segregated by sex and sex only as a legitimate discrimination.

Female single sex provisions are not segregated by sex except for any male person who considers male single sex provisions dangerous.

That male people feel that female people should prioritise them is no surprise. It is a millennia old issue. Every male with a transgender identity in the UK can continue to use a provision that is not specified for them and female people will just continue to take them and /or the organisation allowing them to do so to court until it becomes very clear that those male people are in the wrong.

The lesson for female people will be how to more quickly identify predatory behaviour in male people.

Aw. But Fluff! The issue is that ‘law’ has been redefined to only mean ‘criminal offences’, obviously. Didn’t you get the memo.

If it is not a criminal act, apparently it is not contravening any laws. It is magic!

That male people feel that female people should prioritise them is no surprise. It is a millennia old issue. Every male with a transgender identity in the UK can continue to use a provision that is not specified for them and female people will just continue to take them and /or the organisation allowing them to do so to court until it becomes very clear that those male people are in the wrong.

Also, any trans identifying male who wants to try to challenge being banned from the ladies, isn't going to succeed on the basis of gender reassignment discrimination, as they aren't being turfed out for being trans, they're being turfed out for being male. The comparator would be another (non-trans) bloke in a sex discrimination claim.

FFS. I'm really not sure what to advise my clients in respect of civil law from now on, as it's apparently not relevant.

Back to law school for me! 😫🤣

You approve of taking money from an institution which can't pay for sexually abused kids to have psychiatric counselling?

No, I approve of encouraging hospitals to make sure men aren't changing in the women's changing rooms and making it harder for a second male trans person to take a female patient.

Which practices corridor care because there's no cash to pay for extra staff?

It doesn't cost anything to tell men they can't use a women's changing area.

Which can't implement this guidance because it's already at breaking point regarding number of staffed beds? Right before the winter bugs hit?

It's not all about beds.

A billionaire using her cash like this - instead of, say, helping CAMHS save those raped kids - is obscene.

She does both.

It’s often said that people are “radicalised by Mumsnet” on these issues.

Much of the heavy lifting in this is of course done by posters such as @TransParentlyAnnoyed and @KindViper , with their disregard and often contempt for women’s desire for the privacy, dignity and safety afforded by single sex spaces.

(I can’t remember which poster - I don’t think one of the two I mentioned - started using “sex realist” as a derogatory term, but it was particularly funny.)

No, the men who cause her actions to be necessary and the women who support them are the ones who should be ashamed.

Darlington tried that. Cost them as shedload of money.

They all have that same slightly arch, 'calm down dear', 'hmmmm?' posting style, that's what interests me (in the absence of anything actually interesting in their arguments).

It's standard mansplaining with extra misogyny, I think. Extra egregious given the absolute mince they're posting.

Is there a school?

JKR can put her money where she wants which is great. This is very helpful.

However let us remember even without her eventually the trans stuff would have been defeated.

JKR peaked around 2019 because she thought something was dodgy in the increasingly powerful concept of gender theory. She read what other women were already saying on the matter and realised they were right.

That existing discussion was created by thousands of women including many on Mumsnet in articles. books etc. JKR herself always says this. She is part of a movement which pre-existed her and was already fighting back. Without JKR it would take longer but sooner or later we would start tearing this nonsense down.

Yet denial of the existence of biology is incredibly dumb, it was always going to collapse eventually. A key part is playing out right now. The trans activists have always had a number of flaws, but one of the biggest is that they can only win as long as they focus on oppressing women. If they do anything to inconvenience or upset men they run into serious resistance which they can't handle.

Hence the growing collapse of their attempt to take over women's sport. It has already happened at the Olympic level, but it is falling apart everywhere. Because telling other men they are not stronger than women as soon as they put a dress on or say they are trans is going to upset them. They treat as a joke for a while but sooner or later they are going do something especially if a lot of women point out how stupid it is.

Let's also be clear that in making the invitation for women to sue their NHS, she is not intending anyone to sue the NHS.

Her desired outcome is to make the NHS realise that they should implement the guidelines.

She doesn't actually want to fund a single case.