Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

smartcooky said:
This is the upshot of the SC ruling. Its what we have been telling @d4m10n for the last several pages with no success while he insists on playing his contrarian games.
Click to expand...
We've just now seen actual legal analyses posted on point, despite several pages of so-called "contrarian games."
smartcooky said:
If you provide mixed sex spaces, anyone can use them.
Click to expand...
Can you please point to where this interpretation was affirmed in any of the sources linked by @Aber or in the decision itself?

The closest thing I've found to supporting this claim was where the Supreme Court said (at §213) that "if a service provider…provides services previously limited to women also to trans women…even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men."

This is a commonsense argument against self-i.d. as a viable sorting mechanism, but it seemingly leaves the door open to gender presentation as a sorting criterion in mixed-sex settings, even though that is not a protected characteristic in the EA.

Suppose Hampstead Heath ponds decides to designate the formerly female-only pond for people of any sex who wear women's swimsuits, and the formerly male-only pond for people of any sex who wear men's swim trunks. Can such a policy rooted in gender expression be forced back into the single-sex legal framework from EA 2010 Schedule 3?
Aber said:
Or if you want to get really technical see pages 17-31 of this on single sex services
Click to expand...
Once again, the management of Hampstead Heath Ponds are not claiming to offer single-sex services—they specifically disclaimed doing so:

“The Corporation is expressly not seeking to rely on the exceptions under paragraphs 26 – 28 of Schedule 3 EqA because the Corporation recognises, following the Supreme Court’s ruling, that it is not providing single-sex facilities as defined within the EqA.”​

[Source]

If you want to make the argument that the courts will eventually reject the CPC's own claims about what services they are trying to offer—forcing them back into the single-sex legal framework—please do so. If you feel that the really technical legal brief from the Sex Matters lawyer made the case against any trans-inclusive spaces, just give me a paragraph numbers.

(I'm guessing 52 through 59.)
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
We've just now seen actual legal analyses posted on point, despite several pages of so-called "contrarian games."(I'm guessing 52 through 59.)
Click to expand...
From the first 2 pages of a Google search, not that hard to find, despite your claim not to have found any.

Suppose Hampstead Heath ponds decides to designate the formerly female-only pond for people of any sex who wear women's swimsuits, and the formerly male-only pond for people of any sex who wear men's swim trunks.
Click to expand...
And...

Please define "women's swimsuits" and "men's swim trunks".

Can such a policy rooted in gender expression be forced back into the single-sex legal framework from EA 2010 Schedule 3?
Click to expand...

Yes - please show how this would not be indirect discrimination under the Equality Act, as applied to the protected characteristic of sex
Indirect discrimination occurs when a policy which applies in the same way for everybody has an effect which particularly disadvantages people with a protected characteristic.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
We've just now seen actual legal analyses posted on point, despite several pages of so-called "contrarian games."

Can you please point to where this interpretation was affirmed in any of the sources linked by @Aber or in the decision itself?

The closest thing I've found to supporting this claim was where the Supreme Court said (at §213) that "if a service provider…provides services previously limited to women also to trans women…even if they present as biological men, it is difficult to see how they can then justify refusing to provide those services also to biological men and who also look like biological men."

This is a commonsense argument against self-i.d. as a viable sorting mechanism, but it seemingly leaves the door open to gender presentation as a sorting criterion in mixed-sex settings, even though that is not a protected characteristic in the EA.

Suppose Hampstead Heath ponds decides to designate the formerly female-only pond for people of any sex who wear women's swimsuits, and the formerly male-only pond for people of any sex who wear men's swim trunks. Can such a policy rooted in gender expression be forced back into the single-sex legal framework from EA 2010 Schedule 3?

Once again, the management of Hampstead Heath Ponds are not claiming to offer single-sex services—they specifically disclaimed doing so:

“The Corporation is expressly not seeking to rely on the exceptions under paragraphs 26 – 28 of Schedule 3 EqA because the Corporation recognises, following the Supreme Court’s ruling, that it is not providing single-sex facilities as defined within the EqA.”​

[Source]

If you want to make the argument that the courts will eventually reject the CPC's own claims about what services they are trying to offer—forcing them back into the single-sex legal framework—please do so. If you feel that the really technical legal brief from the Sex Matters lawyer made the case against any trans-inclusive spaces, just give me a paragraph numbers.

(I'm guessing 52 through 59.)
Click to expand...
I give up. You're unreachable!
 
Aber said:
please show how this would not be indirect discrimination under the Equality Act, as applied to the protected characteristic of sex
Click to expand...
Everyone is wearing their usual (hopefully comfortable) swimsuits; what sex-based disadvantage are you alleging?
Aber said:
Please define "women's swimsuits" and "men's swim trunks".
Click to expand...
Go to any bloody clothing store; you can suss out the differences pretty quickly.

ETA: That was too snippy; here is a real world example of an individual in a swimsuit designed for men:

 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Everyone is wearing their usual (hopefully comfortable) swimsuits; what sex-based disadvantage are you alleging?

Go to any bloody clothing store; you can suss out the differences pretty quickly.

ETA: That was too snippy; here is a real world example of an individual in a swimsuit designed for men:

Click to expand...

Looks like you're trying the "there are some awkward edge cases, so this proves women can never have anything nice" gambit once again.

You do realise the SC judgment specifically covered this one, right? She goes in the mixed pond.
 
d4m10n said:
If only there were some sort of norm about addressing arguments instead of arguers here at ISF.

Ah, well. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Calling out hypocrisy is addressing the argument, tho, at least in terms of pointing out that it is demonstrably in bad faith, one way or the other.

Also, I didn't address any arguer at all. What you inferred is out of my hands.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
Looks like you're trying the "there are some awkward edge cases, so this proves women can never have anything nice" gambit once again.
Click to expand...
If you've been following the Cass Report thread, then you already know that young females who were allowed to transition fairly early spiked a few years back at the Tavistock, becoming the most common cases of (pre-)adolescent gender dysphoria by a wide margin over males. This means that in the UK you are going to have plenty of these allegedly "edge" cases who now pass as male (due to the amazing effectiveness of synthetic T) and must be sorted into female-only spaces going forward, should your interpretation of the EA 2010 prevail.
 
d4m10n said:
And now for something on my side of the pond:

www.aclu.org

What’s at Stake as the Supreme Court Takes Up Transgender Sports Bans | ACLU

How one West Virginia teenager could shape the future of Title IX and civil rights protections for transgender youth.
www.aclu.org www.aclu.org
Click to expand...
"But under a ban passed by the West Virginia state legislature, Pepper-Jackson would be prohibited from playing on the girls’ team. “She likes to do the best in everything, be it algebra or running or shot put or discus,” her mother told NBC News. “She tries to excel in everything that she does, just like any other kid.” "

Nobody needs yet another boy who's super invested in being better than all the girls in his local girls' sports league.
 
Thermal said:
What you guys need is a poster who has no respect for women.
Click to expand...
Are you volunteering then?

Anyone who thinks it's fine for biological men, over the objections of women, to have unfettered access to women's safe spaces has, by default, utter disrespect for women. Misogynists one and all!
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
If you've been following the Cass Report thread, then you already know that young females who were allowed to transition fairly early spiked a few years back at the Tavistock, becoming the most common cases of (pre-)adolescent gender dysphoria by a wide margin over males. This means that in the UK you are going to have plenty of these allegedly "edge" cases who now pass as male (due to the amazing effectiveness of synthetic T) and must be sorted into female-only spaces going forward, should your interpretation of the EA 2010 prevail.
Click to expand...

That's not the only option. Anyone who is uncomfortable using the sex segregated facility appropriate for their sex could be permitted to use the self contained unisex facility currently designated for the use of the disabled, for example, with more such unisex cubicles being provided as standard going forward.
 
d4m10n said:
Everyone is wearing their usual (hopefully comfortable) swimsuits; what sex-based disadvantage are you alleging?

Go to any bloody clothing store; you can suss out the differences pretty quickly.

ETA: That was too snippy; here is a real world example of an individual in a swimsuit designed for men:
Click to expand...
Multiple evasions.


It's YOUR hypothetical; provide the wording that you would use to guide users in your Hampstead Ponds.

And how you think you could avoid claims for Indirect Discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
If you've been following the Cass Report thread, then you already know that young females who were allowed to transition fairly early spiked a few years back at the Tavistock, becoming the most common cases of (pre-)adolescent gender dysphoria by a wide margin over males. This means that in the UK you are going to have plenty of these allegedly "edge" cases who now pass as male (due to the amazing effectiveness of synthetic T) and must be sorted into female-only spaces going forward, should your interpretation of the EA 2010 prevail.
Click to expand...

My interpretation? I'm going by the SC judgment, which most explicitly doesn't say that at all.
 
Rolfe said:
I'm going by the SC judgment, which most explicitly doesn't say that at all.
Click to expand...
What does the SC judgement say should happen to the men's and women's ponds at Hampstead Heath, in your view?

I can see just a few possibilities based on different interpretations of what the EA 2010 allows and requires:

1) Single-sex only spaces (trans men like that dude in the speedo are permitted to use the women's pond but not the men's pond) in accordance with the reasoning of Ben Cooper's legal brief (sections 52-59) linked above at #13,079

2) Mixed-sex spaces based on something like gender expression (e.g. my hypothetical which caused @Aber to somehow forget that swimsuits come in only two basic types: ones designed to cover wedding tackle and ones designed to cover nipples)

3) Mixed-sex spaces based on self-i.d. per the reasoning from Stonewall and other trans rights activists about what "sex" means in the EA

We can probably all agree to rule out the third interpretation, although the solicitors advising the CPC have not done so yet.

I had taken you to be arguing for the first interpretation, but now you've corrected my misimpression.
 
Last edited:
Aber said:
It's YOUR hypothetical; provide the wording that you would use to guide users in your Hampstead Ponds.
Click to expand...
Okay, but only if you do the same.
Aber said:
And how you think you could avoid claims for Indirect Discrimination on the basis of the protected characteristic of sex.
Click to expand...
I'm not seeing any approach which will avoid claims based on the characteristic of sex and claims based on the characteristic of gender reassignment, but perhaps you have one in mind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom