Nadia Whittome calls for a change to the Equality Act...

[iwishitwouldstartraining]

But can anyone work out what she actually wants?

https://archive.ph/MxOPp#selection-4201.0-4201.14

Why the fuck do women try to undermine women's rights?

Because people of either sex can lack critical thinking skills? You don't need any particular qualifications or education or life experience to be a politician. And Nadia Whittome looks about 12, so it's not surprising that she lacks those things.

That idiot Samantha Niblett has also alluded to this. She said they want to use a statutory instrument to change the law.

“We want rights, trans rights are humans rights, stop taking our rights away”

”what rights?”

”our rights to exist, our rights to be our authentic selves and like, exist”

Oh right.

Thread about the TUC shitshow where Whittome made her comments at a fringe meeting https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5578612-tuc-motion-erases-women-from-their-own-rights?utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=app_share

As recent ET cases have been about getting undressed in front of male work colleagues, I would take a wild guess and suggest this is what Nadia and Samantha want to do.

My guess is she wants a pat on the back.

A SI to avoid scrutiny and debate, I imagine?

Yes, I’m pretty sure. But legal commentators seemed to think she’s showing her ignorance as it would affect multiple pieces of legislation.

I never stop being shocked at just how willing some women are to deprive us all of rights. I mean what is it with these people? Can she not see the adverse impact this would have on LGB? On rape victims? On orthodox Jewish or Muslim women? Why don’t they have rights? Not cool enough?

I am very eager to learn what they are proposing.

I hope they get on with it.

We have been waiting for years now.

by now I assume that ppl like NW are either incredibly dim that they really can't reason from the personal "what my nice trans friend wants " to wider society "what does everyone else need to manage society safely ?" or she really genuinely doesn't give a shit about women

I think the second.

Lots more women (and benign men) are the first though, obviously.

Nadia is very young, and has been deeply enmeshed in the Right Side of History for many years. She lives in a bubble.

I also imagine it can be hard for politicians who do no doubt get a lot of abuse to discern what is helpful and constructive criticism and what is just more noise.

I think she wants gender identity added to the equality act as its own protected characteristic. That is imho, better than trying to shoe horn it into sex. It is clear sex is to protect biological women.

Gender is de facto written into the EA though, as the definition of 'gender reassignment' essentially allows for gender self ID.

The bit that trips people up is that this does not trump natal sex.

So you can't use your self ID gender to override your sex, and use opposite sex facilities.

Michael Foran's book Sex, Gender and the Law explains this really well.

No different to Sal Grover's demands that the law is changed in Australia. Parliament trumps the Supreme Court.

No, it protects people while they are undergoing gender reassignment via hormones or surgery. It doesn’t explicitly protect a person who is being discriminated against for their gender identity.

No, it doesn’t allow gender self ID but sex reassignment.

Very problamatic

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7
7Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

The Equality Act does need to be amended because it says you can change your sex. You can’t.

Part of the goal will be to change the leglislation and then argue that because the law is now different, the cases decided under the "old" law are now moot. This would (arguably) clean the slate of all the successful cases and it would be time to start again.

Even if this would be a bit of a try-on it would increase uncertainty. Uncertainty has been a major fuel for the genderists' cause for years

Exactly, I believe it’s mostly about increasing uncertainty.

I have no problem with anybody trying to change the law through the proper democratic process and I am very interested to hear what she proposes.

I'm just not sure what she intends to propose. Will she try to get rid of the protected characteristic of sex (a non starter) or will she propose that there should be more unisex provision (arguably already covered in the EA)?

I note that she has had a long time to come up with something given that the law was confirmed for people without a GRC in 2022.

This will be interesting. To be a good trans ally, NW will have to advocate for full self ID (basically anyone who declares themselves the opposite sex will be so with no gatekeeping whatsoever). Good luck trying to sell that. If she argues for anything less than that, the TRAs will denounce her. I don't think she will come out of this well.

TRAs will call her a nazi traitor if she calls for more unisex provision (something which I think many people would actually support).

So why don’t they? If they believe women are in no danger from men with a trans identity, why don’t they campaign for unisex spaces as well, then share them with their lovely TIM friends…. Everyone is happy.