• 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

I see today that the hate groups backed by a nazi have persuaded the UK supreme court* that transphobia should be the law of the land, I have to wonder which other marginalised minority they will try to unperson now.

* Given the watchword of the UK's courts system us still Denning's "appaling vista" expecting justice was probably a forlorn hope.
 
Men are not women, Gulliver, and they can't turn into women either. Men have to use their own facilities, or a third mixed facility if one is provided. That's all. They're still people.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
I see today that the hate groups backed by a nazi have persuaded the UK supreme court* that transphobia should be the law of the land, I have to wonder which other marginalised minority they will try to unperson now.
Click to expand...
Why do you hate women so much? Women defending the rights their mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers fought long and hard to win, is not transphobia. Transgender people don't cease to exist because of this ruling, nor are they made into second class citizens - quite the opposite in fact - the ruling defends them as a protected minority - it reaffirms their rights to not be discriminated against in regards to housing, employment, etc. However it now places science and reality based limits in regards to safe spaces for women.

Transwomen are not women, they are men... that are biologically male. Humans cannot change sex. That is scientific, objective, observable reality, the way it has been for hundreds of years.... and now its the law.
 
smartcooky said:
Why do you hate women so much? Women defending the rights their mothers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers fought long and hard to win, is not transphobia. Transgender people don't cease to exist because of this ruling, nor are they made into second class citizens - quite the opposite in fact - the ruling defends them as a protected minority - it reaffirms their rights to not be discriminated against in regards to housing, employment, etc. However it now places science and reality based limits in regards to safe spaces for women.

Transwomen are not women, they are men... that are biologically male. Humans cannot change sex. That is scientific, objective, observable reality, the way it has been for hundreds of years.... and now its the law.
Click to expand...
Just because you stand with transphobes doesn't mean the restof us have to. You've amply demonstrated on these fora the utter wrongness of your opinions.
 
I would also be interested in hearing @Gulliver Foyle's argument, assuming it goes beyond labeling his opponents phobic.

smartcooky said:
Why do you hate women so much?
Click to expand...
Personalization doesn't help anyone make or understand the arguments to be had here.

Can we get past the constant back and forth of "You're misogynist!" followed by "No, you're transphobic!" just for a few pages?
 
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle said:
I see today that the hate groups backed by a nazi have persuaded the UK supreme court* that transphobia should be the law of the land, I have to wonder which other marginalised minority they will try to unperson now.

* Given the watchword of the UK's courts system us still Denning's "appaling vista" expecting justice was probably a forlorn hope.
Click to expand...
They haven't and all the new judgement does is confirm how the Equality act was already considered in England and it isn't quite the "victory" some folk believe it to be. (I have in the past in some long-ago older continuation of this thread stated how the Equality act distinguishes between a trans person with a GRC and biological sex.) But trans folk are still legally protected from discrimination by way of their gender reassignment i.e.:
It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:
  • age
  • gender reassignment
  • being married or in a civil partnership
  • being pregnant or on maternity leave
  • disability
  • race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
  • religion or belief
  • sex
  • sexual orientation
Click to expand...

And I say it isn't the victory (based on my current understanding of what the judgement will say) some people think it is as what will now have to happen is for other cases to work their way through the system. For example a trans person wanting to use the toilet in line with their gender reassignment so a trans man wanting to use the male toilets, the courts will have to decide whether that is unlawful discrimination based on gender reassignment. The matter is far from settled law.

It also settles another matter - whether a trans person needs a GRC to be entitled to protection under the equality act, it is apparently going to say it isn't needed, which is not the way I read the Equality act, but they are the judges not me.

ETA: Was just doing a quick search before I hit "post reply" and found a quote from Hodge.

...snip...

"But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another," he adds, as he prepares to set out a definitive ruling shortly.

"The Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination and harassment in substance in their acquired gender.

"This is the application of the principle of discrimination by association.

"Those statutory protections are available to transgender people, whether or not they possess a gender recognition certificate."

...snip...
Click to expand...


ETA: After reading the judgement I can see why they say a GRC is not required (paragraphs 201-204) for protection against discrimination based on "gender reassignment"). I think I'm going to have to change my opinion on that point.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
They haven't and all the new judgement does is confirm how the Equality act was already considered in England and it isn't quite the "victory" some folk believe it to be. (I have in the past in some long-ago older continuation of this thread stated how the Equality act distinguishes between a trans person with a GRC and biological sex.) But trans folk are still legally protected from discrimination by way of their gender reassignment i.e.:


And I say it isn't the victory (based on my current understanding of what the judgement will say) some people think it is as what will now have to happen is for other cases to work their way through the system. For example a trans person wanting to use the toilet in line with their gender reassignment so a trans man wanting to use the male toilets, the courts will have to decide whether that is unlawful discrimination based on gender reassignment. The matter is far from settled law.

It also settles another matter - whether a trans person needs a GRC to be entitled to protection under the equality act, it is apparently going to say it isn't needed, which is not the way I read the Equality act, but they are the judges not me.

ETA: Was just doing a quick search before I hit "post reply" and found a quote from Hodge.
Click to expand...
Does the judgement actually define what counts as gender reassignment?
 
theprestige said:
If a GRC doesn't entitle you to caucus with the women, why bother having one?
Click to expand...

Quite. The situation up till now was that any man who said he was a woman was a woman, whether or not he had a GRC, so very few people bothered with them. Men just rocked up and demanded inclusion, and generally everyone was to afraid (or too captured) to oppose them. A big issue was that nobody was allowed to ask for a GRC, so the assumed legal position that only a GRC conferred this entitlement was unworkable. If the court had decided that a GRC did indeed entitle a man to enter all women-only facilities there would have been a massive stampede to get them. But now we're back to "it doesn't make any difference" but in a different context. Not even a GRC entitles a man to women-only facilities. So why bother.
 
Thermal said:
AFAICT, it transfers rights to cross some lines, but not all?
Click to expand...

No. It's pretty redundant. Originally it allowed men who had a GRC to marry another man and claim it wasn't a same-sex marriage - which was illegal at the time. But now equal marriage rights are established, it's not needed.
 
Importantly, from the ruling:

"It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy."

But this will have some teeth:

"The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex. Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate."
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
No. It's pretty redundant. Originally it allowed men who had a GRC to marry another man and claim it wasn't a same-sex marriage - which was illegal at the time. But now equal marriage rights are established, it's not needed.
Click to expand...
As I'm reading it, obtaining a GRC recognizes your actual sex to correspond to your identified gender, under the Gender Recognition Act of 2004. You could actually have your birth certificate reissued with the new sex.
 
Darat said:
They haven't and all the new judgement does is confirm how the Equality act was already considered in England and it isn't quite the "victory" some folk believe it to be. (I have in the past in some long-ago older continuation of this thread stated how the Equality act distinguishes between a trans person with a GRC and biological sex.) But trans folk are still legally protected from discrimination by way of their gender reassignment i.e.:


And I say it isn't the victory (based on my current understanding of what the judgement will say) some people think it is as what will now have to happen is for other cases to work their way through the system. For example a trans person wanting to use the toilet in line with their gender reassignment so a trans man wanting to use the male toilets, the courts will have to decide whether that is unlawful discrimination based on gender reassignment. The matter is far from settled law.

It also settles another matter - whether a trans person needs a GRC to be entitled to protection under the equality act, it is apparently going to say it isn't needed, which is not the way I read the Equality act, but they are the judges not me.

ETA: Was just doing a quick search before I hit "post reply" and found a quote from Hodge.
Click to expand...

Dream on, Darat. Of course we're going to see the rationalisations and the obfuscations and the false claims continue for a bit. We've already seen that clown "Heather Herbert" on TV claiming that he's a biological woman and will go where he likes. That is not going to fly.

Transgender people are protected from discrimination and harrassment. So you can't harrass a man because he's wearing a dress. You can't insult him and call him names. You can't treat him less favourably as regards housing or employment or any of the normal rights all of us have. But it is now quite clear that if he tries to enter women-only spaces he is out of his lane and may be asked to leave. Politely and respectfully. If he goes into the men's facilities he is 100% protected against harrassment because he has every right to be there and nobody can ask him to leave.

The court has decided. That is what this is all about. We are not going to see a load of case-by-case cases where individual men try to assert that they should be allowed into women's single-sex spaces. That boat has sailed.

The only issue I can see is where someone as deluded as Heather Herbert, or maybe Theo Upton, insists in the face of all available evidence that he is actually and for realsies a woman, and how do you handle someone as entitled and as deluded as that, in practical terms?
 
Thermal said:
Importantly, from the ruling:

"It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy."
Click to expand...

That's fine. Women are concerned with policy as it affects our single-sex spaces. He can call himself a woman all he likes so long as he doesn't encroach on the provisions of the 2010 act. This is all about maintaining the single-sex spaces which the EA provides for women to have, and always provided for. It's a negation of the always-wrong assertion that men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment could not legally be excluded from these spaces. That's it. It is a complete victory because that's all that was wanted.

Thermal said:
As I'm reading it, obtaining a GRC recognizes your actual sex to correspond to your identified gender, under the Gender Recognition Act of 2004. You could actually have your birth certificate reissued with the new sex.
Click to expand...

Yes, some have had new birth certificates issued. Which is the next thing that needs stopping. It's a falsification of a historical record and should not be permitted. But other documents like passports and driving licences can be and have been changed without any need for a GRC. What this ruling confirms is that an man's actual sex remains male for the purposes of the EA no matter what certificates he does or doesn't get.
 
Thermal said:
As I'm reading it, obtaining a GRC recognizes your actual sex to correspond to your identified gender, under the Gender Recognition Act of 2004. You could actually have your birth certificate reissued with the new sex.
Click to expand...
Right, but what substantive rights does the GRC get you if not communal accommodation (§224) or single-sex higher education institutions (§228) or sport (§234) or what-have-you?

Basically, what's left?
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind the reason the GRA was enacted. Pressure was being put on the government by human rights actors to deal with the fact that a man who had full "sex reassignment surgery" was unable to marry a man, because same-sex marriage was illegal. At the time the government was adamantly opposed to making same-sex marriage legal. Rather than do that, they came up with this fudge whereby the man who was pretending to be a woman was given the status of "woman" as a legal fiction, so that he could then marry his boyfriend.

Then history overtook the whole thing, same-sex marriage was made legal, and the entire exercise was pretty much redundant.
 
d4m10n said:
Right, but what substantive rights does the GRC get you if not communal accommodation (§224) or single-sex higher education institutions (§228) or sport (§234) or what-have-you?

Basically, what's left?
Click to expand...
Seems to me that if your birth certificate says you are a female, 'on paper' you have literally every right and privilege available to you that a natal female does.

I'm not defending this; I think it's screwball. And it's exactly the issue we have from the title of this thread onward. The ruling says later that despite their disclaimer, they have in fact defined man and woman to refer to bio sex when interpreting EA 2010, so that's gonna have some precedent power, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom