Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

d4m10n said:
I think it would be totally bonkers if some municipality were to have a sign that says "Women's Pool (ciswomen and transwomen)" and then the courts were to come along and say "Aha! They said the magic word and therefore must be offering single-sex services."
Click to expand...

You can think that if you like, but that's the law.
 
Article about the vandalism and hooliganism in Brighton. (Sign-in wall, but "Reader View" circumvents it.)

www.telegraph.co.uk

For the first time in 21 years, I’m truly afraid of what the trans activists will do next

The police must stop enabling protesters and take action to protect women from violent threats
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

1760137690972.png

Apparently the conference organisers requested some measure or other from the council that would have prevented these hooligans from doing that, but the council refused to implement it. They're captured too of course. The city's Green MP posted a tweet blaming the conference organisers for provocative behaviour. "Look what you made me do!" She's a woman, too. Shamefully.
 
I have no idea who the "Daily Caller" is, but this is fairly explosive.

dailycaller.com

EXCLUSIVE: Docs Knew Gender Science Was 'Shoddy,' But Pushed Chemical Sex Changes On Kids Anyway

Private emails from leaders of an influential transgender medical organization expose how ideology and consensus, rather than science, has undergirded the explosive growth of the child sex-change industry.
dailycaller.com dailycaller.com

I note that our resident "I support the expert doctors who have researched this thoroughly" members haven't been seen here for a while.
 
d4m10n said:
What page was that?

What page was that?
Click to expand...
Page 86, paragraph (xviii)

"We therefore conclude that the provisions of the EA 2010 which we have discussed are provisions to which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex.
So as @Rolfe correctly states, the MOMENT the terms “sex”, “man” or “woman” are mentioned in ANY official document, the EA 2010 applies.
 
d4m10n said:
What page was that?

I don't recall where any British ruling has affirmed that any use of gendered language by service providers must be interpreted in the same way as the terms are used in the EqA. Surely the courts recognize that language mutates over time.

I think it would be totally bonkers if some municipality were to have a sign that says "Women's Pool (ciswomen and transwomen)" and then the courts were to come along and say "Aha! They said the magic word and therefore must be offering single-sex services."
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court ruling is online as a searchable pdf.

Your comments would be better received if you discussed actual points rather than apply a blanket "prove it".

In your example, the courts would look at the Equality Act and say they are operating a mixed sex facility and to avoid discrimination claims must allow all men to use it.

If the sign just said 'Women's pool' then the defendant could try arguing that the meaning of women has changed to mean (ciswomen and transwomen) BUT would still have to show they complied with the Equality Act; the court would look at how it was used in practice to determine whether it was single sex or mixed sex.
 
EU LGBTIQ+ proposed strategy

EU Commission proposals, which includes:

While a number of Member States have adopted self-determination models, others impose medical procedures, which the European Court of Human Rights has found may infringe human rights. The Commission will facilitate exchanges of best practices among Member States to support the development of legal gender recognition procedures based on self-determination that are free from age restrictions.
Click to expand...
 
Aber said:
The Supreme Court ruling is online as a searchable pdf.
Click to expand...
Did you happen to see the link I posted?
Aber said:
courts would look at the Equality Act and say they are operating a mixed sex facility and to avoid discrimination claims must allow all men to use it.
Click to expand...
Are you getting this conclusion from the EqA itself or the ruling?
Aber said:
If the sign just said 'Women's pool' then the defendant could try arguing that the meaning of women has changed to mean (ciswomen and transwomen) BUT would still have to show they complied with the Equality Act; the court would look at how it was used in practice to determine whether it was single sex or mixed sex.
Click to expand...
So far I haven't seen anyone point to the EqA and say right here is why you cannot say this specific pool is intended for use by cisgender females and transgender males and this other pool is intended for use by cisgender males and transgender females. They just say it is impermissible because you cannae cross the streams of protected characteristics, which might well be true for all I can tell but certainly hasn't been shown here.
Aber said:
Your comments would be better received if you discussed actual points rather than apply a blanket "prove it".
Click to expand...
I don't have actual points, I only have questions about claims other people keep making and expecting us to take on faith.

The second step of IRACWP requires that we know what rule will be applied, but no one seems to know where they are getting their rules from.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
So as @Rolfe correctly states, the MOMENT the terms “sex”, “man” or “woman” are mentioned in ANY official document, the EA 2010 applies.
Click to expand...
The court did not say that every official use of those terms must be interpreted in the same way those terms are in the EqA.
 
smartcooky said:
I just bloody quoted it for you right there in my post that you quoted.
Click to expand...
No, you quoted the court saying how those terms should be interpreted when they appear in the EqA, not when they appear in other official documents or even other statutes touching on sex and gender.

Here is what the court actually said (at paragraph 2) about whether the ruling would impact other uses of the relevant terms:

It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. ​

That seems fairly definitive to me.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
No, you quoted the court saying how those terms should be interpreted when they appear in the EqA, not when they appear in other official documents or even other statutes touching on sex and gender.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
That's because it is a court addressing the case before it, not a parliament writing a law.

However all the arguments they make about the need for clarity and consistency in the meaning of words, will be quoted as authoritative if there are cases involving other laws.
 
d4m10n said:
So far I haven't seen anyone point to the EqA and say right here is why you cannot say this specific pool is intended for use by cisgender females and transgender males and this other pool is intended for use by cisgender males and transgender females.
Click to expand...
Because that is not what the Equality Act does.

The Equality Act only comes into play when someone claims that there is discrimination - direct or indirect or by perception, related to a protected characteristic.

Service providers can say or do what they like, subject to the risk that they will be sued for discrimination. The examples you provide are clearly directly discriminatory on the grounds of the protected characteristic of sex against cisgender males (as the correct comparator is a transgender male who is granted access) and cisgender females (ditto) respectively.

The interaction of direct discrimination on the grounds of a protected characteristic vs discrimination by perception of having a protected characteristic is where things get complicated.
 
Last edited:
Aber said:
The examples you provide are clearly directly discriminatory against cisgender males and cisgender females respectively.
Click to expand...
I'll stipulate this to be true if that helps move the discussion forward. Which provisions of the EA should be invoked?
 
d4m10n said:
No, you quoted the court saying how those terms should be interpreted when they appear in the EqA, not when they appear in other official documents or even other statutes touching on sex and gender.

Here is what the court actually said (at paragraph 2) about whether the ruling would impact other uses of the relevant terms:

It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. ​

That seems fairly definitive to me.
Click to expand...
And as SOON as anyone in the public domain attempts to create or define one or more sex segregated spaces, and someone makes a complaint about it, the EA is automatically invoked, and when that happens, the meaning of the EA, as specified by the April 2025 SC Ruling applies.

"The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex."

You appear wedded to this personal fantasy of yours that you have found a "gotcha" loophole in the law. You haven't. If you had, one of the several hundred ideologically captured human rights lawyers in the UK would have exploited it by now.
 
Last edited:
Scientists just discovered a woman who's blood cells that are all XY. Is she a he?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom