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!

Oh this is so tedious.

The lying. The handwringing. The oh-we-don't-understAAAaaaaaanding.

It is so so simple. And so so easy.

You want to make your provisions mixed sex, don't call it single sex. That is literally it.

All this stupid hand wringing and mud throwing is just to hide that very very simple solution.

The only actual problem here is that what you really want to do is call it single sex but make it actually mixed sex.

I have no idea why anyone wants to do this, but please, just be fucking honest and there's no problem at all! No one gets sued, no one gets angry, and no one has to feel like one woman is somehow the biggest danger on the planet because she won't lie about what makes someone female.

Sheeesh!

Since you can't even differentiate between male and female humans, and people's self image I really don't think you have a leg to stand on here.

Has anyone told KindViper that this wasn't a spelling mistake yet?

Well it is the school/university holidays…

Howse? Australian, innit…

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.

Yes. This would relate to e.g. exclusion of a trans identifying woman from a women's rape crisis support group because she had changed her appearance to such an extent that this caused distress to other users because they believed her to be a man. However, she still has a right to provision.

Blanket bans - which the GC ideological captives interpret the law as being - simply do not meet that test.

This is where you seem to be very confused. A single sex service cannot include both men and women because then it is mixed sex. It's not a question of whether anyone can be banned, it's a question of the material reality of what the service is. The provider may then be unlawfully discriminating against people who require a single sex service.

Asking a trans person to use a third toilet would be discrimination

No, because per J. Swift:

the absence of a trans-inclusive lavatory is not the same as no lavatory at all. Even assuming interference with article 8 rights the interference would be less significant than considered by courts so far. However, even if that analysis is wrong, the Claimants’ case still fails. Even if there is a relevant prohibition on provision by a service provider or an employer of a trans-inclusive lavatory, and a consequent interference with article 8 rights, that interference would be capable of being justified taking into account the rights and freedoms of
others.

and in the case of asking someone with a GRC

GRC is irrelevant to single sex provision in the Equality Act. A piece of paper cannot change anyone's sex, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. Also, read the GRA. It's very clear that its impact is limited.

it is clearly illegal and against the recent HC ruling by judge Swift, were contrary to the EHRC CoP he ruled that alowing a trans woman to use the facilities that matches her gender would not be indirect discrimination against cis men.

You really do need to read what he actually said which was that the 'circumstances of the case would be decisive'. In practice it would of course be impossible to prevent any man from using the facilities because gender is a subjective concept, so the question would be whether lack of single sex provision discriminates against women.

a trans person does not break any laws by using facilities that matches their gender.

Not sure why anyone would provide gender based facilities, but it is true that it is not a criminal offence to use an opposite sex toilet. The law might be broken if somebody refused to leave an opposite sex toilet, or if a service provider did not make adequate single sex provision.

a bigot that harasses anyone in a in a single sex facility will quickly find themselves facing a judge for that harassment.

Saying 'I'm sorry, this is the ladies' has never been harassment. It's just the normal way of helping people to use the correct facility.

the CoP is facing a least 2 legal challenges..

Yes Jolyon Maugham is indeed raising funds on this basis. Many would question the ethics of this.

trans people are obviously going to use the facilities that match their gender presentation because it is too dangerous to do otherwise.

So you are just suggesting mixed sex services that anyone can use, but without the safety features of unisex provision. It's very unclear how this is less dangerous for anyone.

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.

And now picking up on this bit of sophistry....let's unpick what this attempt to mislead is actually based on.

The general rule is that single sex anything is discriminatory and not ok.

The exception to this is that in a situation where the needs of or risks faced by the sexes are so different that trying to meet both with the same provision would disadvantage one sex versus the other to the degree it may become discriminatory against that sex to only offer mixed provision.

In this case the provider is exempted from the general rule that bans single sex anything because the single sex provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. And trans peope are simply included in this like everyone else.

To be clear, trans people are not by this exemption singled out for special treatment, they are simply covered by the same single sex rules as everyone else, which the SC confirmed refer to biological sex.

Finally, there is a further consideration that was noted by the SC and so reflected in the guidance, which is that it is theoretically conceivable that a trans person has been so successful in appearing as the opposite sex that their presence in a single sex space which aligns with their biological sex might undermine the legitimate aim for which that provision exists as legitimately exempt in the first place.

In that specific scenario, it might be proportionate that the provider has to exclude them in order to continue to meet their legitimate aim.

Critically,

(1) although the bad faith TRA argument is to take the last point as a standalone exemption, it is not a separate consideration. It requires there to be an existing legitimate need for single sex provision and the only basis on which a potential exclusion of the trans person - effectively discriminating on the PC of gender reassignment - was being allowed is if it is also in service of that same aim. It is not a standalone decision, it's a secondary one in support of an already determined proportionate aim to exclude the oppodite sex.

(2) it's allowing on a case by case basis, for trans people of the biological sex that aligns with a single sex provision to be excluded in addition to the opppsite sex. The baseline is a provision that the opposite sex is already fully and completely excluded from. It is not and never has been allowing for trans people to be included where others of their biological sex are not.

(3) The actual scenario envisioned by the SC was rape crisis or similar. It wasn't a suggestion that transmen woukd routinely be excluded from ladies toilets where the proportionate aims are typically safety, privacy and dignity rather than the suppprt of deeply violated and traumatised women.

You are Jolyon Maugham and I claim my £5
Oh and you're going to lose btw.
(I am not JK Rowling)

Oh dear - I wondered why this thread had suddenly got so many new posts.

Even a simple thread about something positive has been hijacked and the purpose of applauding JKR lost in the usually provocative posts to take up time that could be spent on proactive and advancing discussion.

They aren't doing it to maybe reconsider. They just thinking how long can we string out these whatabouterries to make another FWR on no use to anyone that those getting a laugh out of the derail.

Continually repeating their opinion will not make it correct. If we agreed with them, we’d all be wrong.
There is no point in debating settled facts.
It’s not as if their aggressive stance will convince us otherwise.

Trans’women’ are men. Born that way and will die that way.
Trans people can’t change their sex.

@FlirtsWithRhinos and @nicepotoftea
Thanks for taking the time to spell all that out so clearly! (I couldn't be bothered, having One Of Those Days). It's obviously been said before ad nauseum for all our reader's benefit, and no doubt it will need to be spelled out again, and so therefore we will continue to do so.

It won't, however, be read at all by those who are not interested in facts or the truth. But, that's ok. Disingenuous scrambling of legal phrasing to suit what one wishes the law to say/mean does not, of course, change the law one iota.

So, to everyone reading this who thinks that their interpretation of the law is somehow superior to the actual law, I say, fine, bring a suit to court and we'll all see then how brilliant your "argument " is.

I have no doubts.

It is hijacked, but I see that slightly as a positive - the more they share their confusion and inanities and the more it is corrected and the actual reality shown - the more that is picked up by search engines and AI - and as they are starting to set opinion it will start to influence that...

the real irony will come when they do it so much that AI engines will hit peak and become gender critical - at that point hopefully whenever someone tries to use AI to produce pro-trans material there will start to be a GC bias 😀

Oh yes. I post to counter misinformation rather than with any hope those who spread it will stop.

But of course this is because I do them the honour of assuming they are intelligent enough to be deliberately misrepresentating the law.

It's always possible they are actually just dumb, but I prefer not to think that of others.

I did idly muse whether @KindViper was the fox botherer earlier on!

Same twisted "legal" arguments. Same condescending tone.

Yeah it does sound like him

And stamp all over someone's sense of grammatical superiority? Why would you want to do that? What if it's all they are clinging onto in an increasingly unsafe, hostile, reality-based society?

Why? Why would you want to be so cruel??

Or they could, y'know, adhere to the law and avoid getting sued...

Still can't believe you managed to bag that username! 🏅

Haha I wasn't missing that beauty 😂

If you're so sure you're right, the NHS has nothing to fear from "one deranged billionaire", do they?

So can we make a list of who is getting sued so far using Jo's money?

Park run, Amnesty international, Girl guides, The NHS

And suing all of them is a good thing for benefitting society and everyday people?

Idea- if she has so much money why not, instead of trying to take money from the NHS which could harm everyone, she donates to the NHS so they can build additional toilets? For example more Unisex toilets in addition to men's and women's which trans people could use? Lots of European countries commonly use unisex facilities.

This is also cartoon-villain territory at this point. "I'll sue the NHS and the world's largest human rights org to spite those trans people and I don't care if people who need them get harmed!".

If anyone is wondering btw what Amesty Int. do:
www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/

Nobody needs to be sued. They just need to comply with the law and the guidance.

Park Run. That organisation where the women's record is held by a man.

Amnesty International. Whose own staff say it has lost its way and is currently under investigation by the Charities Commission.

The NHS has plenty of unisex toilets if the very many hospitals I visit is anything to go by. Trans males don't want to use them, they want affirmation as women by using toilets designated for women only.

That Park Run record is not just held by a man but a man currently in prison for stabbing a UK Athletics official who questioned his sex

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

more hilarity - this really is the thread that keeps on giving...

So, that will be Amnesty International who labelled 117 organisations as anti-rights when most of them are more pro-rights than Amnesty themselves...

Amnesty International who have an agenda to intimidate smaller organisations

Amnesty International where the granddaughter of the founder says she will donate no money to them - horrified at what they are doing: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/amnesty-founder-s-granddaughter-refuses-to-donate-after-blacklisting-jk-rowling-s-organisation/ar-AA293iZ0

Ms White said her grandfather would be "appalled" by the charity's current position, saying it contradicted everything Mr MacBride stood for, The Times reports.

Ah yes - that Amnesty International which thinks that Beira's Place is 'Anti-rights' because it cares for women who are most in need of that care in a single-sex environment and won't allow bullying men pretending to be women to join in!

So that will be girl guides who are happy for girls at their most vulnerable age to go off on camp believing that it is a single-sex environment, only to find a boy undressing and sleeping in with them?! Remove the 'let's be nice to trans' argument and that has safeguarding red-flags all over it...

So that will be Park Run who are happy for men to pretend to be women and take away the pole positions for women in the competitive leaderboard - men who wouldn't rank amongst other men, but have realised that by pretending to be a woman they can suddenly start to win things...

So that will be the NHS where some management are so captured by trans-ideology that they will swear that x=y (man = woman) despite being the profession of medics who beyond all others should know the difference between a man and a woman and that one can't change to the other! The NHS which allows vulnerable women to be placed in danger through their ideology. The NHS which allows male doctors to bully women and change in their safe spaces because they claim to be a woman

JKR isn't taking money from anyone - the decision to be in the place where an organisation is breaking the law is that organisation's decision - let them be grown ups and own the consequences - or is their no longer any accountability for the decisions people make? If someone choose to break the law / takes their organisation into a place where it is breaking the law - then they should get the consequences for that choice - otherwise, we become a lawless society. At present senior managers in these organisations can take these decisions with no personal consequences - we need to see more activity in prosecuting the individual for making illegal decisions - once they start to see a personal accountability being enforced upon them, they might start to comply with the law.

JKR is not doing this in an attitude of 'I don't care if people who need them get harmed!' the very opposite - she is doing it to support the people who need these organisations who are being actively harmed by a few malicious people... the nurses who are forced to have men in their changing room, the girl guides who don't want boys in their loos / changing areas / bedrooms... the women who train hard to succeed in sport, only to have that success removed from them by some inadequate male pretending to be a woman... The charities attacked by Amnesty international all of who are out there to look after people - and whose work is threatened by such attacks...

Crack on JKR - one of the few people standing up to the bullies and doing what is right.

I was thinking more of the bundlemeister myself 🤔