• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

smartcooky said:
The popularity of this thread does not stem from "trans panic" ( (:rolleyes: whatever the hell that is supposed to mean)... it stems from the vile statements of a few TRA misogynists calling normal people "bigots" and "transphobes" for defending the rights of women.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it does. This is a nothin burger. It affects almost no one. But that doesn't stop it from scaring people.
 
It might be interesting to add up the total of all the money that has been raised by crowdfunding to challenge this nothing-burger in the courts, by people who certainly think it affects them a great deal. £232,000 just for the case that's being decided tomorrow. Just one case out of many. And that itself is an appeal against an appeal verdict.
 
So the Supreme Court over yonder is ruling on that distinction I keep harping about? Cool. Any bets? I'm betting on a ruling that gender does not equal sex.
 
Thermal said:
Really? Because broadly, transwomen have a lot of open doors. All over my state, everywhere. Lia Thomas' women's swim records are proudly displayed at UPenn. And the courts of most states are falling in line in greater numbers: if gender equals sex, and you can't discriminate by gender or sex, than there are no sex segregated spaces....
Click to expand...
Sex segregation in bathrooms, pools, changing rooms, etc is not discrimination.
 
Thermal said:
So the Supreme Court over yonder is ruling on that distinction I keep harping about? Cool. Any bets? I'm betting on a ruling that gender does not equal sex.
Click to expand...

You need to read up on the legal points being argued. It mainly hinges on whether a man with a GRC is allowed to access women's single-sex provisions (and vice versa). It has already been ruled that without a GRC, he can't, but a lot of organisations have not got that message, a lot of men are simply flouting the law, and a ruling that it's illegal to ask anyone if they have a GRC isn't exactly helping.

If the trans lobby wins and a GRC is a passport to anything, there will of course be a mad rush to get GRCs. The Scottish government's desire to make these things available to anyone at all on the making of a "solemn declaration" and paying a fiver may not be able to be stopped. Nevertheless moves are underway to legitimise asking for someone's GRC as a condition to accessing women's facilities, so we're actually heading for "papers please" in that situation. The other side-effect the TRAs haven't appreciated is that trans-identifying women with a GRC will lose all the protections afforded to women, including maternity leave and maternity pay and employment protections while pregnant, and also will not be able to be named as their baby's mother on the birth certificate as the courts have ruled that only a female can be a mother.

If sanity wins, and the smart money says he thinks it will, though he just posted that as he goes to bed he's less sure, there is still an enormous amount of work to do to disentangle Stonewall Law from all our public and private institutions, because Stonewall has told them that self-ID is the law of the land (which it never was) and that it's illegal to prevent anyone claiming trans status to go anywhere they damn well please. Everyone has fallen over themselves to comply with this, to get a much-coveted high place in Stonewall's top 100 employers list. And anyone who stood out against it has been vilified as a hater and a bigot and a transphobe and often sacked, hence the startling number of employment tribunals going on as a result of all this. Not bad for a nothing-burger that affects almost no-one.

The legal question is whether the SC judges take the view that the intent of those drafting the law was that a GRC changes someone's sex "for all purposes" (despite it then giving a list of exceptions), and that the resulting dog's breakfast is something that parliament has to legislate to sort out, or whether they decide that enough is enough and that a legal fiction can't over-ride reality to that extent. Many people think that the politicians would welcome the latter outcome, despite batting for the other side, because it would get them off the hook they have hung themselves on.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm saying that the recent "trans panic" is over the top and transphobia is the reason.
Click to expand...
What would be an archetypal example of this recent and unfounded panic?

ETA: Trying to figure out if you're arguing against positions actually held here.
 
Last edited:
www.heraldscotland.com

Supreme Court ruling on woman definition issued

The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of For Women Scotland in a landmark case on the legal definition of a woman.
www.heraldscotland.com www.heraldscotland.com

"The Supreme Court has ruled in favour of For Women Scotland in a landmark case on the legal definition of a woman. This means that women and sex in the Equality Act is defined on a biological basis. Issuing the judgement this morning, Lord Hodge said the decision was "unanimous" that woman and sex in Equality Act refer to biological sex.
 
Last edited:
It's going to have ramifications internationally. Not least that people who have been cowed and intimidated into silence may find their voices.
 
Rolfe said:
It's going to have ramifications internationally. Not least that people who have been cowed and intimidated into silence may find their voices.
Click to expand...
I agree.

Its a HUGE step towards a return to science based observable reality. The tide hasn't merely turned... its roaring out now. If women in the USA were to take a similar action en-masse, I'm sure the current composition of SCOTUS would look favourably upon them. Australia will be a tougher nut to crack though - the Federal government and courts are a totally captured by gender ideology. They really have gulped down the trans activist's Kool Aid, by the gallon.

Sall Grover, the founder Giggle for Girls, now needs to base her entire operation, including servers, in the UK so that she can bypass the stupid Australian Federal Law, and once again make her chat app lesbians only, excluding carnival barkers like "Roxanne" Tickle from participating.
 
Ironically, it was clear that Trump's election and his executive orders emboldened many people outwith America. This will build on that.
 
I think he's telling us that we should still strive to be polite to LARPing womanface men when we firmly request that they get the hell out of women's spaces. And not shriek with laughter over the absolute clownshow spectacle they make of themselves.
 
Rolfe said:
Ironically, it was clear that Trump's election and his executive orders emboldened many people outwith America. This will build on that.
Click to expand...
That twat has nothing to do with it. If anything people would be less willing to apparently ally themselves with him. Both of the main parties had already committed to the idea that men and women were sex-based distinctions.
 
I see this is already being discussed, but the UK's highest court has agreed with the title of this thread.

UK Supreme Court says legal definition of ‘woman’ excludes trans women, in landmark ruling

LondonCNN —
The United Kingdom’s highest court ruled that the legal definition of “woman” excludes trans women, in a case with sweeping consequences for how equality laws are applied.

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the definition of a woman in equality legislation refers to “a biological woman and biological sex.”

The court was deciding on whether trans women with a gender recognition certificate (GRC) – which offers legal recognition of someone’s female sex – are protected from discrimination as a woman under the nation’s Equality Act 2010.

A group of campaigners in Scotland brought the challenge in 2018, arguing that those rights should only safeguard those assigned as women at birth. But the Scottish government said that a trans woman with a GRC is legally a woman and should therefore be afforded the same legal protections.

Even though the case draws from a debate over Scottish laws designed to increase the number of women sitting on boards, the outcome on Wednesday will shape the increasingly fractious and polarizing debate over transgender rights across the UK.
Click to expand...

(Even here, I notice that CNN is still using the language that sex is "assigned at birth". Which I roll my eyes at.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom