Rolfe
Adult human female
Because that's how it is. They are permitted to exclude women with a very androgenised appearance, and if someone complains they they will be obliged to do that. If nobody complains then there is no problem.
Transwomen are not Women - Part 15
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Just to be clear, it's not a "new" interpretation or a reinterpretation. When the Supreme Court makes a decision like this, it is ruling this is what the law has always been, and how it should always have been interpreted.
It is organisations such as Stonewall and Mermaids, and in this case, the City of London, who have been (IMO, knowingly) misinterpreting the law, and (again, IMO, knowingly) lying about it.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Where in St. George's holy name are you pulling "obliged" from? The decision only said that the law permits exclusion in the event that the organisers use their judgement to conclude that the female-only nature of the service requires it. This is a clear disanalogy between the organizers of the hypothetical counseling session and the actual organizers of the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Yes, and for that reason, if someone complains, they are liable to be sued if they don't do it. It's not about the choice of the organisers, it's what happens if someone complains. If nobody complains nothing will happen, even if Arnold Schwarzenneger strolled into the women's pool (unless they were checking people at the entrance which they are not obliged to do). But when someone complains, the EA kicks in. They can't just say "we allow women who look exactly like men to come in here" if it's making somone uncomfortable, because that someone is in the right and can take action to make sure the unwelcome person is excluded.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
They will be sued either way! Sex Matters coming from one side, Good Law Project from the other.
My question is why you folks seem so confident in the eventual result.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Because the Good Law Project is purely a grift of Jolyon Maugham's, and has lost almost every case they have brought. It's Hail Mary activism, not a rational interpretation of the law.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
Look it's theoretically, and remotely possible they could end up with a rogue, loony-left liberal trans-activist judge in the lower court who could give the middle finger to the SC. This is extremely unlikely. Of course, they would immediately appeal, and would be almost a gold plated certainty that Court of Appeal would overturn the lower court.
ETA: Just look.at the Sandie Peggie case for example. Do you really think the Employment Court is going to rule against her after the Supreme Court decision?
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
This is worth a read. (Reader View works.)
I don't get the "access restricted" thing. It's an article in the Telegraph. Just remove the space after the h.
h ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/16/trans-book-banning-hypocrites-causing-violence/
I don't get the "access restricted" thing. It's an article in the Telegraph. Just remove the space after the h.
h ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/10/16/trans-book-banning-hypocrites-causing-violence/
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Here's a long tweet dealing with some of the rubbish that was being posted here a page or two back.
Maybe we should club together to buy copies for the posters who keep coming up with "but what sex is someone with XXY chromosomes?" like it was some sort of gotcha.
Maybe we should club together to buy copies for the posters who keep coming up with "but what sex is someone with XXY chromosomes?" like it was some sort of gotcha.
Rolfe
Adult human female
More about the safe, life-saving treatment that all professionals agree is the approach that must be taken.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Now, on which side is the hate, here? Background. An Australian women's group had arranged a private meeting which was all-ticket, with attendees all checked for security and no public advertising. Less than a week before the event the venue suddenly cancelled, saying that it had only just discovered that a previous, public meeting of the group had been attacked by trans activists. They decided it was too dangerous to let this event proceed.
An offer was made for the event to continue if the women paid "thousands of dollars" for a high-level security presence, which they obviously didn't have. The women say they had been entirely up-front with the venue all along, and had had a meeting a couple of weeks earlier with the venue when nothing was said about any of this.
There's nothing in the article saying that TRAs had specifically threatened this event, but it's their modus operandi, and it seems very suspicious that the venue claims to have "discovered" absolutely on its own initiative, about the previous disruption, just days before the event.
Has there ever been a single event organised by trans supporters that has been physically (or even verbally) attacked by sex-realists? I don't think so. But this keeps happening. Violent masked men, often armed with baseball bats and similar, attack women's meetings - that is, if they haven't succeeded in getting them cancelled by threatening the venue in advance, as may have happened here. Then the women's groups are accused of attracting violence and either prevented from meeting or made to pay huge fees for enhanced security.
It's the heckler's veto, with added physical violence. All carried out by these fragile trans flowers and their pals, people we're being told are so vulnerable they won't leave the house if someone misgenders them. I'd like to see our resident trans apologists defend this one.
An offer was made for the event to continue if the women paid "thousands of dollars" for a high-level security presence, which they obviously didn't have. The women say they had been entirely up-front with the venue all along, and had had a meeting a couple of weeks earlier with the venue when nothing was said about any of this.
There's nothing in the article saying that TRAs had specifically threatened this event, but it's their modus operandi, and it seems very suspicious that the venue claims to have "discovered" absolutely on its own initiative, about the previous disruption, just days before the event.
Has there ever been a single event organised by trans supporters that has been physically (or even verbally) attacked by sex-realists? I don't think so. But this keeps happening. Violent masked men, often armed with baseball bats and similar, attack women's meetings - that is, if they haven't succeeded in getting them cancelled by threatening the venue in advance, as may have happened here. Then the women's groups are accused of attracting violence and either prevented from meeting or made to pay huge fees for enhanced security.
It's the heckler's veto, with added physical violence. All carried out by these fragile trans flowers and their pals, people we're being told are so vulnerable they won't leave the house if someone misgenders them. I'd like to see our resident trans apologists defend this one.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
I wish the vanished posters who were lecturing us about how paediatric transition is safe and effective and lifesaving and all the experts in the field have come to this conclusion on the basis of solid, robust evidence, would read this.
www.theatlantic.com
But they have all run away from the thread.
The Liberal Misinformation Bubble About Youth Gender Medicine
How the left ended up disbelieving the science
www.theatlantic.com
But they have all run away from the thread.
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
When they are questioned under oath, left wing trans-allies are precluded from using the "zombie facts" they rely on to promote the closed circle of lies they share in their echo-chambers, for example, the claim that not transitioning a child who is suffering from gender dysphoria will dramatically increase the likelihood they will commit suicide. When confronted, they are forced to admit it's all bull-◊◊◊◊...I wish the vanished posters who were lecturing us about how paediatric transition is safe and effective and lifesaving and all the experts in the field have come to this conclusion on the basis of solid, robust evidence, would read this.
The Liberal Misinformation Bubble About Youth Gender Medicine
How the left ended up disbelieving the science
But there is a huge problem with this emotive formulation: It isn’t true. When Justice Samuel Alito challenged the ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio on such claims during oral arguments, Strangio made a startling admission. He conceded that there is no evidence to support the idea that medical transition reduces adolescent suicide rates.
At first, Strangio dodged the question, saying that research shows that blockers and hormones reduce “depression, anxiety, and suicidality”—that is, suicidal thoughts. (Even that is debatable, according to reviews of the research literature.) But when Alito referenced a systematic review conducted for the Cass report in England, Strangio conceded the point. “There is no evidence in some—in the studies that this treatment reduces completed suicide,” he said. “And the reason for that is completed suicide, thankfully and admittedly, is rare, and we’re talking about a very small population of individuals with studies that don’t necessarily have completed suicides within them.”
Here was the trans-rights movement’s greatest legal brain, speaking in front of the nation’s highest court. And what he was saying was that the strongest argument for a hotly debated treatment was, in fact, not supported by the evidence.
Well of course they have. Intellectual cowards will always run away from debates where their zombie facts cannot be used to control the debate and steer it towards their preferred narrative.
What I find amusing about them is they call themselves skeptics, yet the moment they face evidence and facts that don't support their claims, instead of finding better evidence, they skulk away with their tails between their legs.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
This tweet sounds like a lot of this thread !
I just realised that's a few months old, but none the worse for that. I deleted a second link because someone pointed out that the sums were wrong on the second bar chart. I can't see the correct figures graphed anywhere, which is a pity.
I just realised that's a few months old, but none the worse for that. I deleted a second link because someone pointed out that the sums were wrong on the second bar chart. I can't see the correct figures graphed anywhere, which is a pity.
Last edited:
Rolfe
Adult human female
Those who were promoting the notion that "Christianity" is the main driving force preventing the whole of society from worshipping at the trans shrine need to read this thread.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
They don't have to make them single-sex - they can make them mixed-sex if they wish to. What they can't do is simultaneously limit use to females and *some* males. If they include some males (those with transgender identities) then they cannot exclude any other male, nor can they label it as "women's", because that clearly implies single-sex - that's the meat of the ruling.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
“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.”And now for something on my side of the pond:
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
Yes, *he* likes to be the best, and it's easy for a male to outperform females. It's great for *his* self esteem and happy feelings about *himself*... so ◊◊◊◊ all the females that *he* screws over, who cares about them, they're just females after all.
ACLU has entirely lost the plot.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Which solicitors have concluded that the new ruling requires all currently trans-inclusive services (spas, ponds, gyms) in the UK to rewrite their policies and convert themselves to either single-sex or mixed-sex services?
No, the meat of the ruling is about what "woman" and "man" means in the Equality Act 2010.
You have to do a significant amount of legal reasoning to get from there to your conclusions here.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Technically, the US SC didn't create a new right. They interpreted existing constitutional rights, and extended those to include "privacy" within them.
The fact that it's an interpretation has been leveraged to confer other extensions as well - including abortion and same-sex marriage. But since it was only an interpretation without backing legislation, it left RvW open to being re-interpreted. Congress should have made a damned law, like they did with same-sex marriage. Then again, they also could have gotten off their bloated asses at any time in the past 100 ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ years and codified equal rights for female citizens... which they STILL haven't done!