Strange then that the judges spent so much time in their judgement working through that point, you and Rolfe could save the SC a lot of time and effort letting them know what the law means!
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
That is what new court cases will have to decide - you may hold that opinion, but it is not yet backed up by case law. Now my opinion is the same as yours as I don't think such a direct approach will be upheld, I expect the cases will be based on points regarding a right to privacy and the like.
Rolfe
Adult human female
I think we'll manage just fine figuring out who is a woman and who isn't. I think the main issue is likely to be perfectly obvious men insisting that they are women and how dare you object to my presence here. Like a toddler with jam all over his face insisting that he hasn't been anywhere near the jam jar. Whether it will work for grown-ass adults remains to be seen.
The judgement is perfectly clear. People with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (with or without paperwork) have always had the right not to be discriminated against on that account. It's well established and well understood. It just doesn't arise in the context of which toilet they use, which is determined according to their sex. If it is legitimate to exclude a male on account of his sex it is legitimate to exclude a male with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. What would be illegal would be to exclude a male from the Gents on account of gender reassignment. But nobody is going to do that.
Rolfe
Adult human female
It's entirely how it is. There will not need to be any court cases to decide this.
I saw an interesting suggestion today. That if someone has a genuine phobia against using the toilet which is proper to their sex, this is clearly a disability, so use the disabled toilet. Nobody cares.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Not allocated. Observed to be. Get it straight.
The Equality Act 2010 states ;A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.'
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Not strange at all, at least over here. Judges over here love to get into the legal weeds. Especially when they're on the record and looking to appeal-proof their judgement. I can only imagine how much more exhaustive their analysis woukd be, when they're setting an important and contentious precedent.
Are your judges typically more careless?
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
Ok, I have been assured that analogizing to black people is a no-go, but:
Black people do not put on blackface. It's something that was done by white people purely to mock, and for no other reason. Transgenders are dressing how it feels right to them, not to mock. So a white dude wearing blackface, no matter what he believes himself to be, is adopting an irredeemably tainted mockery. A black observer has every reason to be insulted. Not so with a guy who sports long hair and makeup.
It's why I object to the term 'womanface'. Blackface is and always was mockery. That's not how transgenders are rocking it, and shows that the user of the term believes the transwoman to be insincere.
To your point though, people don't identify as trans racial in any known way. Some white boys will certainly adopt black manners of speech and dress, but as near as I can tell, they don't think they are actually of Sub-Saharan descent. So it becomes the 'I identify as an attack helicopter' argument, which has value only so far as saying 'a lotta people are trolls at heart'.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
The judges were aiming for absolute clarity, because it was after all at the heart of the case they had been asked to decide. Does the possession of a GRC confer any additional privileges or protections on the holder over and above those available to anyone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. They decided that the answer to that was no. Obviously, the protections relating to gender reassignment are available with or without the paperwork. (Which is now confirmed to be about as much use as a Blue Peter badge.)
Thermal
August Member
Can't wait to see what happens when bigots guess wrong, and call the police on a masculine looking woman in the women's room and demand a genital inspection or however they think they are going to resolve that. I guess the bigots would legally be discriminating based on gender expression, which is still a crime?
Rolfe
Adult human female
You must think that women are blind, deaf and stupid.
Thermal
August Member
No. It applies to transwomen, not 'any old guy'. That you think that means 'any male' shows that your starting assumptions is that a significant amount of men will lie and misrepresent themselves. Statistically, we are not seeing that. Anywhere. The ones that are inclined to lie in order to abuse have been doing so anyway.
What? No, of course not. I think it's a little societal cruelty rubbed in their faces. Making it clear that they are not accepted for what they feel they are. And that's what I'm trying to sidestep.
For instance, the ideal for restrooms might be gender neutral multi occupant, and individual privacy rooms for the red tent issues and other privacy concerns. Does that tick all the ideological accommodations without favoring any one group? It's what the Portland schools settled on, and appears to work.
Thermal
August Member
Well looking at that list of alleged 'transwomen who attacked females in private spaces', they for damn sure can't read.
There were no masculine looking women during the twentieth century. Otherwise we'd already know what would happen.
Thermal
August Member
Yes, they've been going through for a long time. Just like women have been going in the men's room, and we've all managed. But now they've declared it a legal battle ground, with clear precedent set. The complaints would have had no legal teeth before. They do now, and someone's going to ◊◊◊◊ up. I'm just curious how it will be handled.
Eta: and Darats transman hypothesis. Even questioning him might be viewed as harassment, and if he is in fact a Buck Angel, it certainly is. I think?
Last edited:
Thermal
August Member
That is an annoying one. You are not assigned or allocated a sex.
Pokin my head in here as usual to ask (and get told off for asking) why on earth we can't have the "Alertable ◊◊◊◊◊◊ Behaviour Is Happening" based on 'alertable ◊◊◊◊◊◊ behaviour' instead of on 'there's somebody in here who doesn't pass.'
It (still) looks to me like it would be WAY easier to codify the actual creepy behaviours we want to control, than (gestures at the thread in general). Can we really NOT make 'staring' 'lounging around all spread out' 'loitering for no reason' (ie no friends in there) 'digging in the trash' etc etc, ejectable (and equal-opportunity) offenses?
Like. You guys speak as though it's impossible to have a regular-ass woman ejected from the restroom for being a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ creeper, which is... a problem.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Biggest smile on my face today.
Rolfe
Adult human female
You are conflating two very different things. (I also struggle to imagine what sort of behaviour a woman might engage in that might result in her being ejected from the women's bathroom.) Also, simply being in there is a violation if the person is male. A woman might decide to overlook a male person, but she always has the right to object to his presence, regardless of what he is or isn't doing. That is precisely the point.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Let's unpick this. Women have been correctly-sexing masculine-presenting women since forever. It has literally never been an issue. Women in the past also sometimes turned a blind eye to a man in the women's room if he appeared to be sincerely trying to look like a woman and didn't do anything objectionable. Don't conflate these two things. (The latter wasn't usually extended to changing rooms though.)
What has changed? What changed was that men started demanding access to women's spaces as a legal right, rather than as a favour. They insisted that they had this right regardless of how they dressed or looked, and to a large extent how they behaved. So instead of the very occasional man who was trying to look and be inoffensive, we had men flaunting themselves in women's spaces, getting naked in changing rooms in front of schoolgirls and so on.
The result of this obnoxious, entitled and (it has now been confirmed) illegal behaviour was that women became hypervigilant and defensive. Whose fault was this? The women's, or the men who yomped all over our private spaces? This behaviour has now been conclusively stated to be illegal. Nevertheless the men say they will continue to do it. So, surprise surprise, it's likely women may remain hypervigilant and defensive.
The solution to this is not to tell women that it's all completely unworkable and they better just resign themselves to putting up with whoever chooses to go in their spaces, as before. It is for men to ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ well stop going in there.