Sall is not hypothetical.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
Rolfe
Adult human female
Sall said on Twitter yesterday that this is the happiest she's been in years. Considering that she's in Australia and this ruling doesn't affect Australia one might wonder about that, but I think she sees the beginning of the end in sight and the possibility/probability that common sense might be about to spread.
People have been speculating that she might be able to set up her "Giggle" operation on servers based in Britain and avoid Australian law that way, but I don't know if it would work. Given the notoriety of the case, which nevertheless Ivor seems entirely unaware of, she wouldn't be short of members.
(I also saw a tweet declaring that "Roxanne" was changing his name to "Tess" and a couple of people fell for it for about ten seconds.)
People have been speculating that she might be able to set up her "Giggle" operation on servers based in Britain and avoid Australian law that way, but I don't know if it would work. Given the notoriety of the case, which nevertheless Ivor seems entirely unaware of, she wouldn't be short of members.
(I also saw a tweet declaring that "Roxanne" was changing his name to "Tess" and a couple of people fell for it for about ten seconds.)
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
It definitely has happened. And I only found out the other day that it's been happening not just to detainees but to prison visitors. Women going to visit family members in prison have been searched by a TIM. There is actually a right to object, but the relevant rule is worded something like, if the reason for the woman objecting is perceived to be discriminatory then action may be taken against her. Imagine having to put up with that to get to see your husband in prison?
I don't know how many of these TIMs are employed by the police and prison services (Lyndsay Watson was sacked by the police as being too much even for them and has now embarked on a career as a vexatious litigant in person), but British Transport Police, the first out of the blocks on this, have said they are setting up a counselling service for officers distressed by this decision. That's right. Men in bad wigs are to be offered psychological support because they're no longer allowed to sexually assault women. When women officers were compelled to search the men in bad wigs (who were often sexually aroused by it) they were just told to get on with it and no they couldn't object because that would be discriminatory.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think there's a lot of truth in this.
If this applies to judges being required to consider misgendering in custody cases, I don't think this is unreasonable. If a teen allocated female at birth wishes to change their name and stop wearing dresses and have a girlfriend, but the father insists on making the teen wear dresses and can't go to the prom with a girl, and this is causing distress then it should be considered.
This doesn't mean that I am against women only spaces, or want to promote the trans option. I had gender dysphoria as a teen, I grew out of it, I do think for most young women with gender dysphoria psychological support is needed not just pharmacological. My father just seemed happy that he could do with his daughter all the things that he would have done with his son had he had one. Whilst I learned to keep a straight bat, my sister learned to cook, in retrospect a more useful skill than being able to score a cricket match. Historically it seems being a tomboy was an accepted option for a teen girl, now it seems to have been changed into an indication of a need to transition. But even historically sympathy doesn't seem to have favoured forced feminisation of tomboys.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
In Australia and New Zealand, we call that a "Clayton's Choice"... the choice you have when you don't have a choice
Disgraceful!
Commonwealth lawyers can use case law from other commonwealth nations in court cases. Australian courts will be influenced by the UK supreme court ruling. It will be referenced in court in Australia, NZ etc. However is is not directly applicable as it addresses particular issues in UK legislation. Lawyers like to keep commonwealth law coherent.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I don't agree with this. There are children being pushed into transition by one parent while the other is trying to keep the child grounded. This automatically makes that attempt improper. As the article says, judges need to be able to take individual family circumstances into account.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Hobson's choice here. From the owner of a livery stable who insisted that customers take the next horse on the rota, the one that had rested longest, rather than letting them choose.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think she's hoping for something like that. Wednesday's ruling is sending international shock-waves.
I "read it" by reading the entire judgement and understanding it. It is apparent that many folk here and in the media wittering on about it haven't read the entire judgement.
For the purposes of the EA is indeed the final word on what sex means in that act.
However, as the judges in their judgment made clear that is not the final word in what could constitute direct and indirect discrimination against the class of folk covered by "gender reassignment" in the Equality act. So yes there will be new cases regarding providing toilet provisions and so on for trans folk but they won't be based on the premise that a trans person has changed sex (with or without a GRC) under the provisions of the Equality act, the sex provision now refers to biological sex only. The judges have also made it clear that a GRC is not required for someone to be considered a member of the "gender reassignment" class so have in effect stated that self-ID is the only requirement in the UK.
Rolfe
Adult human female
You are reading it with your own biases front and centre then. Gender reassignment (with or without paperwork) is not relevant to toilet provisions at all. There is no case to be made for allowing any male access to the female-designated space or vice versa.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Quite a lot of women describing being up in the clouds on Wednesday, but it actually just sinking in for me, particularly after listening to Lady Faulkner and picking up on the fact that where it is legitimate to exclude a man, it is legitimate AND OBLIGATORY to exclude a trans-identifying man. The judgement makes much of the fact that if any male is allowed into a designated female-only space then it ceases to be female-only and becomes mixed-sex. The corollary to that, which is the bit that is just sinking in, is that if a provider advertises a space as single-sex, they do not have the option of then saying, no, we really mean it's mixed-sex.
I have myself misunderstood the law on this matter. I was under the impression that it was up to the provider of the service to decide the terms of use. That if a theatre for example has two sets of toilets with M and F on the doors, and a woman complained about an M in the F space, they could simply say, we are an inclusive establishment and patrons are welcome to use whichever facilities they are most comfortable with. God knows, we've seen this happening in practice often enough, even with scolding little notices warning women not to complain. I knew that under the Health and Safety at Work legislation that an employer had to provide separate M and F facilities (or proper unisex ones), which is why Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses were always on a good wicket, but I thought the same didn't apply to commercial premises and they could set their own rules.
It seems I was mistaken. The difference is rather more subtle. A commercial organisation is not obliged to provide single-sex toilets, or in many cases toilets at all. They may choose to do something different, for example many small premises just have a single lockable toilet equipped for disabled use and everybody uses it. That's fine. It's legal and it's properly signed. But the crucial point Baroness Faulkner makes is that IF the establishment provides toilets with M and F on the doors, these have to be what it says on the tin. It's advertised as a single-sex space, and they can't then choose to make it something different.
We have already seen woke establishments doing different things with their toilets. The Donmar Warehouse is apparently one, and a Mermaid Theatre somewhere. What has been done is to change the labels, usually to label the former Ladies as being for all-comers, leaving the Gents as men-only. It seems to me that this is sex discrimination, in that it treats women (who do not have their own space) less favourably than men (who do). Somebody needs to take action against them, and I suspect now that will happen. Another one is to relabel both the Ladies and the Gents as being for all comers. I don't think that flies either. The Gents has urinals, and women can properly argue that they are not prepared to go into a space where men are using urinals, therefore they are de facto excluded from one space while men have access to both, thus again they are being treated less favourably than men, hence sex discrimination.
It's not uncommon for groups with particular views on this to require hotels and conference centres to relabel their toilets for particular events. In this case I have heard of the urinals being covered up to put them out of use, so that both sets of toilets are cubicles only. This may fly for a weekend. Indeed I heard yesterday that the 2023 Labour Party conference was set out like this. But then the 2024 conference, in the exact same hotel, left the toilets as normal M and F. Winds of change even then? I have also heard of occasions where toilets have been relabelled like this where ordinary attendees have put their own M and F labels back on the doors and groups of people have positioned themselves in the lobby to direct people to the appropriate space. People don't like this arrangement.
There has been much talk about establishments which up till now had normal M and F toilets but did the "anywhere you're comfortable darling" thing now making all their toilets officially mixed-sex to go on pandering to the trans. This is not going to be as simple as changing the labels on the doors though. As above, if one set has urinals and the other hasn't, this will still amount to de facto sex discrimination as men have two places to go but women have only one. They'd actually have to rip out the urinals and go full cubicle-only in both sets of toilets to stay legal. How are men going to react to this? This is going to piss of pretty much 100% of the population. It doesn't even give the Holy Trans what they want, which is for there to be women-only spaces that they can demand access to.
I can't see many, if any establishments doing this. The advantages are pretty much nil and the disadvantages extremely obvious. If normal places like restaurants and department stores start doing it, they're going to get an enormous push-back from their normal customers. I think things are going to be left as they are, with the hugely important difference that the establishment can't tell someone who complains about someone being in the space where they shouldn't be that they're "inclusive" and that although it says F on the door they're OK with it being mixed.
I have myself misunderstood the law on this matter. I was under the impression that it was up to the provider of the service to decide the terms of use. That if a theatre for example has two sets of toilets with M and F on the doors, and a woman complained about an M in the F space, they could simply say, we are an inclusive establishment and patrons are welcome to use whichever facilities they are most comfortable with. God knows, we've seen this happening in practice often enough, even with scolding little notices warning women not to complain. I knew that under the Health and Safety at Work legislation that an employer had to provide separate M and F facilities (or proper unisex ones), which is why Sandie Peggie and the Darlington nurses were always on a good wicket, but I thought the same didn't apply to commercial premises and they could set their own rules.
It seems I was mistaken. The difference is rather more subtle. A commercial organisation is not obliged to provide single-sex toilets, or in many cases toilets at all. They may choose to do something different, for example many small premises just have a single lockable toilet equipped for disabled use and everybody uses it. That's fine. It's legal and it's properly signed. But the crucial point Baroness Faulkner makes is that IF the establishment provides toilets with M and F on the doors, these have to be what it says on the tin. It's advertised as a single-sex space, and they can't then choose to make it something different.
We have already seen woke establishments doing different things with their toilets. The Donmar Warehouse is apparently one, and a Mermaid Theatre somewhere. What has been done is to change the labels, usually to label the former Ladies as being for all-comers, leaving the Gents as men-only. It seems to me that this is sex discrimination, in that it treats women (who do not have their own space) less favourably than men (who do). Somebody needs to take action against them, and I suspect now that will happen. Another one is to relabel both the Ladies and the Gents as being for all comers. I don't think that flies either. The Gents has urinals, and women can properly argue that they are not prepared to go into a space where men are using urinals, therefore they are de facto excluded from one space while men have access to both, thus again they are being treated less favourably than men, hence sex discrimination.
It's not uncommon for groups with particular views on this to require hotels and conference centres to relabel their toilets for particular events. In this case I have heard of the urinals being covered up to put them out of use, so that both sets of toilets are cubicles only. This may fly for a weekend. Indeed I heard yesterday that the 2023 Labour Party conference was set out like this. But then the 2024 conference, in the exact same hotel, left the toilets as normal M and F. Winds of change even then? I have also heard of occasions where toilets have been relabelled like this where ordinary attendees have put their own M and F labels back on the doors and groups of people have positioned themselves in the lobby to direct people to the appropriate space. People don't like this arrangement.
There has been much talk about establishments which up till now had normal M and F toilets but did the "anywhere you're comfortable darling" thing now making all their toilets officially mixed-sex to go on pandering to the trans. This is not going to be as simple as changing the labels on the doors though. As above, if one set has urinals and the other hasn't, this will still amount to de facto sex discrimination as men have two places to go but women have only one. They'd actually have to rip out the urinals and go full cubicle-only in both sets of toilets to stay legal. How are men going to react to this? This is going to piss of pretty much 100% of the population. It doesn't even give the Holy Trans what they want, which is for there to be women-only spaces that they can demand access to.
I can't see many, if any establishments doing this. The advantages are pretty much nil and the disadvantages extremely obvious. If normal places like restaurants and department stores start doing it, they're going to get an enormous push-back from their normal customers. I think things are going to be left as they are, with the hugely important difference that the establishment can't tell someone who complains about someone being in the space where they shouldn't be that they're "inclusive" and that although it says F on the door they're OK with it being mixed.
This demonstrates your blinkers- nothing I have posted about the not-new new judgement has said it does, or it will. Try to read my posts for comprehension rather than with presumption.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Try to stop talking in riddles then. What sort of court cases do you envisage happening as regards toilet access?
I've not talked in riddles - and it couldn't be more ironic considering you've just "discovered" what the laws were! It is why I made one of my earlier posts, that something is new to you doesn't mean it is new to everyone else:
Rolfe
Adult human female
That is simply not the case. Having normal M and F toilets is not discrimination based on gender reassignment, whether you're a small or large establishment. Nobody is going to have to switch to unisex toilets.
It has always been the case that a GRC is not required to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
And how will a biological woman in that toilet know that the masculine appearing person is a biological man and not a trans man?
I haven't said it is a problem. Thinking about it could improve access to toilets for women. More cublicles available for woman to use, even when men can't use a urinal they are probably still quicker when peeing in one than a woman is.
People are thinking this is a much broader ruling than it is.
What this judgment has done is clarified that sex in the Equality act only refers to biological sex, so a trans person cannot claim that not being - for example - allowed to use a toilet of the opposite biological sex to their biological sex is sex discrimination. Trans folk however do still have a right to not be discriminated against for being trans or "gender reassignment" as it is in the Equality act. What that will legally mean will be what new cases will have to establish.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
To the extent that skin color is (subjectively) meaningful, there are tolerable analogies to be made to spaces set aside for females. For example, "black affinity housing" exists on some campuses for the sake of allowing historically marginalized people to support each other in a relatively safe space.