Seems strange to me as this extends the class of trans folk the Equality act applies to and makes it clear the direct and indirect discrimination a trans person is legally protected from.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
A person with a Gender Recognition Certificate saying they are female does not come within the definition of a "woman" under the Equalities Act 2010.
Rolfe
Adult human female
The lawyers are saying that the ruling clarifies what the law always was, since 2010. They are advising organisations of all sorts to get in there and remove the illegal Stonewall Law interpretation from their policies ASAP, because it has always been illegal to permit men of any sort into designated women-only spaces.
Rolfe
Adult human female
There really is no point in posturing that trans-identifying men are protected from being harrassed and discriminated against on account of their trans status. This is entirely irrelevant to the point at issue, which is whether they have the right to enter women-only spaces. They do not, and what's more they never did.
It is illegal to mock or insult a man in the men's room on account of him wearing a dress and lipstick and a bad wig. It is illegal to discriminate against such a man in issues of housing or employment or access to any facility that is open to both men and woman. And that is entirely as it should be.
But as soon as he enters a facility that is properly deemed a single-sex facility under the provisions of the EA, such as a public toilet or a spa changing room or a Youth Hostel dormitory etc. etc. it is neither harrassment nor discrimination to ask him to leave. End of.
It is illegal to mock or insult a man in the men's room on account of him wearing a dress and lipstick and a bad wig. It is illegal to discriminate against such a man in issues of housing or employment or access to any facility that is open to both men and woman. And that is entirely as it should be.
But as soon as he enters a facility that is properly deemed a single-sex facility under the provisions of the EA, such as a public toilet or a spa changing room or a Youth Hostel dormitory etc. etc. it is neither harrassment nor discrimination to ask him to leave. End of.
p0lka
Illuminator
Wouldn't it have been easier to just define man and woman as not biological terms, but as cultural, or as another poster stated larping terms? Make a distinction between male/female and man/woman, then make all your laws refer to male/female and make your sports/toilets/private spaces female only, or male only and it solves all the problems.
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Beyond the scope of the ruling, this round.
Rolfe
Adult human female
No.
That's right. Is there something else you wanted to say?
Rolfe
Adult human female
That's the entire point. That's what we're celebrating. You seem to think there is some other point on which you would like to portray this as not being a complete victory for women. But it is.
Yes - if you go back just a few posts of mine you would have seen: "...(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.)...." This new ruling that you claim isn't a new ruling confirms the interpretation sensible folk like me have always held.
It has clarified some of the other issues folk have - for instance using a different pronoun to what the trans person says is their "right" pronoun could in something like a work environment be treated as harassment under the Equality act.
Thermal
August Member
Till you hit the showers, then your legal sex can take a flying leap?
That's your chip you are describing, nothing to do with what I have posted.
Yep if the showers are legally compliant single sex showers and you are not biologically that sex. Now that is where this ruling may result in a bad situation - for instance where does a trans person who has undergone as complete alteration to their body as possible (via surgery and other treatments to treat their dysphoria) shower?
I suspect that would result in chaos. In this instance the ruling was about the Equality act, the courts only deal with what is in front of them, it's parliament that would have to make such sweeping changes.
Thermal
August Member
That keeps pivoting back to the 'not defining the terms but using them anyway' problem.
Simplisticly, gender recognition should be limited, not the equivalent of a legal sex change. Over here, that's how we do it, more or less. A sex change recognition is pretty all-encompassing, except for a doctor visit. Seems like you could do without the GRC altogether, and you have a full sex change or you don't. Gender recognition should only be a social observance (and a legitimate one), not needing certificates for anything.
BTW, what are normal people doing posting here? Do you know where you are?
p0lka
Illuminator
Why not? It would remove all this wishywashy stuff that's about to ensue?
Thermal
August Member
You want to be the one playing basketball with that hornet's nest?
p0lka
Illuminator
Yeah the equality act refers to man/woman which was a massive error in the first place, it should have referred to male/female then none of this would have been an issue as you can't change your biological sex.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Loving the revisionism here.
It has everything to do with what you've posted.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Man = adult human male
Woman = adult human female
Your unilateral word games are your own affair and thankfully nobody else is listening.