• 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

Thermal said:
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.
Click to expand...
Seems otherwise to the court; please have a look at the specific sections I mentioned.

ETA: The phrase "certificated sex" means the new one written on the GRC, "biological sex" basically means what you'd think.
 
Last edited:
Another significant conclusion:

"The context in which the EA 2010 was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 definitions of “man” and “woman” referred to biological sex and trans people had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment."
 
d4m10n said:
Seems otherwise to the court; please have a look at the specific sections I mentioned.
Click to expand...
Right, that's why this has been in front of their SC. Interpretation has been ◊◊◊◊◊◊ six ways from Sunday, and now they are starting to nail it down and define the ambiguities more clearly.
 
Thermal said:
Right, that's why this has been in front of their SC. Interpretation has been ◊◊◊◊◊◊ six ways from Sunday, and now they are starting to nail it down and define the ambiguities more clearly.
Click to expand...

The problem is that when the EA was drafted nobody seems to have imagined that trans-identifying people would start to claim the sex-based privileges of the sex they weren't. In 2010 Stonewall had not yet taken up the trans cause - that happened in 2015. As that remarkably lucid judgement points out sixteen ways to Tuesday, the whole thing is a complete dog's breakfast if you read it that way and that couldn't possibly have been intended. The anomalies are glaring and ridiculous and they went through them and enumerated every one.

However, after the fact, trans activists (spearheaded by Stonewall) decided to promote what has now been confirmed was always an illegal interpretation of the wording, based on the extraordinarily badly-drafted GRA saying that a GRC changed sex "for all purposes" (before immediately setting out exceptions), and extended that to anyone who claimed a trans identity even without having a GRC. They insisted that as a matter of law any man who said he was a woman was entitled to be included in any and all women-only facilities. They set themselves up as the authority on the subject and promoted themselves as educators. They charged public and private bodies a huge amount of money to be "trained" on this illegal interpretation of the law, and awarded them Stonewall approval points for encouraging trans-identifying people to go where they liked and forcing everyone else to capitulate to this. This poison has permeated practically everything in society, including the NHS which is pretty scary. It needed one massive test case to sort it all out, and we have just seen the result.
 
Darat said:
It gets you a birth certificate which will have your new "certified sex", a passport with the same change and so on and it legally changes your sex.
Click to expand...

It's a legal fiction though, and it has now been confirmed that it does not as a matter of fact entitle you to any female-only facilities.
 
lionking said:
Good show UK. Sanity prevails in some parts of the world at least.
Click to expand...

It's a start. It will take time. I predict that we will see obvious men insisting that they are actually women and how dare you suggest otherwise. I'm not sure how that will be stopped, but it will.
 
Rolfe said:
It's a legal fiction though, and it has now been confirmed that it does not as a matter of fact entitle you to any female-only facilities.
Click to expand...
"The court recognises that it would be entirely incorrect to describe section 9(1) as creating a “legal fiction” as a deeming provision does."
 
This is very good. Wings has gone through the very long judgement and picked out and highlighted the most important provisions.

wingsoverscotland.com

The highlights show

For those of you who don’t have the time or patience to read through 88 pages of judicial lingo, we’ve distilled today’s Supreme Court judgment down to its key points. Much of it,…
wingsoverscotland.com wingsoverscotland.com
 
Rolfe said:
It's a legal fiction though, and it has now been confirmed that it does not as a matter of fact entitle you to any female-only facilities.
Click to expand...
Er no. It will as it has always done depend on what those biologically female only facilities are and the reason for them being biological female only facilities.
 
Darat said:
Er no. It will as it has always done depend on what those biologically female only facilities are and the reason for them being biological female only facilities.
Click to expand...
Examples from para 211
In enacting these exemptions, the intention must have been to allow for the exclusion of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, regardless of the possession of a GRC, in order to maintain the provision of single or separate services for women and men as distinct groups in appropriate circumstances. These provisions are directed at maintaining the availability of separate or single spaces or services for women (or men) as a group – for example changing rooms, homeless hostels, segregated swimming areas (that might be essential for religious reasons or desirable for the protection of a woman’s safety, or the autonomy or privacy and dignity of the two sexes) or medical or counselling services provided only to women (or men
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
Er no. It will as it has always done depend on what those biologically female only facilities are and the reason for them being biological female only facilities.
Click to expand...

Er yes. The judgement is not a new ruling, it clarifies what the law was all along. And that is that wherever there is a facility that is legally permitted to be female-only, it is indeed female only, and that male people of any description are not and never were allowed to be included. This finally gives women the right to stop the gross and egregious incursions into our legitimate single-sex spaces by these bullying and entitled men who were empowered by Stonewall law to transgress our boundaries, citing an entirely illegitimate reading of the EA.

The reason for the facilities being female-only has to be covered by the EA, but - oh I see Aber has covered this. Toilets, changing rooms, dormitories, showers and things like rape crisis centres are absolutely included with no ambiguity at all.
 
Rolfe said:
If I could be bothered to figure out what section 9(1) is, I suppose I could look it up.
Click to expand...
Basically the entire decision hinges on when it is legal to "disapply the rule in section 9(1)" of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
​
Does the EA 2010 make provision within the meaning of section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 to displace the application of section 9(1)?​
​
[several sections snipped]​
​
[N]otwithstanding that there is no express provision in the EA 2010 addressing the effect which section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 has on the definition of “sex”, we are satisfied that the EA 2010 does make provision within the meaning of section 9(3) that disapplies the rule in section 9(1) of the GRA 2004.​

The contention of the Scottish Ministers was that "a full gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person that their acquired gender is female, the person’s sex is that of a woman" based on their interpretation of how section 9(1) of the GRA interacts with the EA 2010.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Er yes. The judgement is not a new ruling, it clarifies what the law was all along. And that is that wherever there is a facility that is legally permitted to be female-only, it is indeed female only, and that male people of any description are not and never were allowed to be included. This finally gives women the right to stop the gross and egregious incursions into our legitimate single-sex spaces by these bullying and entitled men who were empowered by Stonewall law to transgress our boundaries, citing an entirely illegitimate reading of the EA.
Click to expand...
Er yes it is a new ruling, it was just released a few hours ago.
Rolfe said:
The reason for the facilities being female-only has to be covered by the EA, but - oh I see Aber has covered this. Toilets, changing rooms, dormitories, showers and things like rape crisis centres are absolutely included with no ambiguity at all.
Click to expand...
I glad you agree with what I posted.
 
lionking said:
Good show UK. Sanity prevails in some parts of the world at least.
Click to expand...
Although, sadly, a significant, or at least vocal, proportion of the UK skeptical community are taking a less than skeptical viewpoint, and labelling anyone who doesn't agree with their hardline TWAW stance as transphobes, TERFs, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom