Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

d4m10n said:
Please let me reframe the question once again, bearing in mind that it is not devil's advocacy but ordinary legal practice to address edge cases which might come up: Suppose a hypothetical British city wants to offer one pond for "anyone male at birth and also females with GRC" and another pond for "anyone female at birth and also males with GRC" open to anyone who meets those explicitly mixed-sex criteria.

Which part of the SC decision or the EA tells us whether this scenario would be allowed?
Click to expand...
Rolfe explained this pretty well already. They can't *mix* categories in a way that overrides one of the other categories.

A pond that is limited to males cannot include females, even if those females have a GRC - by including females, it makes it NOT exclusive to males, and therefore makes it mixed sex - and at that point they CANNOT exclude females without a GRC.

They could have a pond that is only available to people with a GRC, which would have to exclude anyone without a GRC. They could subdivide within that, and have a Male with GRC pond and a Female with GRC pond.

But they can't MIX them, because the mixing invalidates at least one of the categories being used.
 
I'm not sure they could invoke a GRC, for the reasons the SC went into in some detail. If you're not allowed to ask to see a GRC, how can you gatekeep who is allowed in and who isn't? You can't start imposing "presentation" conditions either, like must be wearing a bathing costume typical of those worn by the claimed "gender", or must have hair or mustn't have a beard. You're literally down to self-ID again.

They'd have to have a pond for anyone who claimed to have undergone, be undergoing or proposing to undergo "gender reassignment", which really boils down to a pond for anyone with the brass neck to walk in.
 
Meh - whether or not it could be done in any reasonable or even plausible fashion is a totally different issue. To the extent that it's a protected characteristic, then it could hypothetically be used as an exclusionary criteria.
 
An exclusionary criterion.

Just saying.

They could have trans-only sessions, the trans activists have booked pools for such sessions in the past, but there's no way they could gatekeep who could or couldn't get in. The only criterion would be, who wants to go in.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm not sure they could invoke a GRC, for the reasons the SC went into in some detail. If you're not allowed to ask to see a GRC, how can you gatekeep who is allowed in and who isn't? You can't start imposing "presentation" conditions either, like must be wearing a bathing costume typical of those worn by the claimed "gender", or must have hair or mustn't have a beard. You're literally down to self-ID again.

They'd have to have a pond for anyone who claimed to have undergone, be undergoing or proposing to undergo "gender reassignment", which really boils down to a pond for anyone with the brass neck to walk in.
Click to expand...
And we have reason to believe that the men with the brass neck to intrude on women's spaces whether women like it or not are the exact cohort of men who probably shouldn't be granted that privilege.
 
d4m10n said:
Where are you seeing that in the text of the decision itself?
Click to expand...
You know what? I just don't feel like playing your games today. There was a lot of discussion about it months ago, there were lots of sections shared, lots of translation to what that means in effect. Now you seem to want to see the exact specific words in just the right order to satisfy you, rather than being able to exercise your mind. And I'm must not up for pretending like you don't understand.
 
Just post the link to the earlier discussion if you are confident it addresses my question.

Or don't...I'm happy to remain skeptical of your (AFAICT) unsupported claims while we wait and see if the City of London Corporation hired ◊◊◊◊◊◊ lawyers this time around.
 
Last edited:
I'm definitely getting a "It can't possibly mean that! The Inevitable March of Progress clearly dictates that males who want to share women's exclusive intimate spaces get to do so!" vibe from this discussion right now.
 
There's just so many of these nutjobs. We're told that trans people are such a tiny minority we should just accede to their every demand, because how can such a tiny minority affect us at all? And yet that tiny minority throws up what seems like a huge number of rapists, porn fetishists and even murderers. It's impossible to do meaningful statistics on this of course, but at some point you have to realise there's a cherry orchard there.

And the stats we do have back this up, with trans-identifying men being about five times as likely to be banged up for sexual assault as other men.
 
d4m10n said:
I'm aware of the ruling, but it's not obvious why the facility owners couldn't just put up a sign saying "This pool is for females and for transgender people" without running afoul of the EA2010. While I agree that "lack of sex segregation disadvantages women more than it disadvantages men" I don't see any British case law standing for that proposition.
Click to expand...

Here you are, referencing the EA2010. Correctly, as it happens.

d4m10n said:
Where are you seeing that in the text of the decision itself?
Click to expand...

And here you are demanding that everything be sourced from the SC judgment without reference to any other legislation.

The SC judgment is about how the word "sex" is to be interpreted in the context of the EA2010.
 
Rolfe said:
The SC judgment is about how the word "sex" is to be interpreted in the context of the EA2010.
Click to expand...
Where does either the judgement or the law itself say that the City of London Corporation was wrong to conclude (after taking specialized legal advice) that they can "mix categories" as they clearly did in the consultation process?
 
Last edited:
Myriad said:
I'm definitely getting a "It can't possibly mean that!"
Click to expand...
Asking for where it says something that is a far cry from claiming it cannot possibly say it. It is ordinary skepticism to ask for evidence of claims, especially when laypersons are putting forth legal conclusions without pointing to the legal reasoning which led to the conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Same same, but you folks keep making these bold claims without ever pointing to any legal analyses showing which paragraphs and clauses of the law will be applied by the courts in this case. It is doubtful that the single-sex exceptions even apply here, since the CLC claims “it is not providing single-sex facilities as defined within the EqA.”
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom