Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

d4m10n said:
It certainly does with respect to the narrow issue of "whether references in the EA 2010 to a person’s “sex” and to “woman” and “female” are to be interpreted in the light of section 9 of the GRA 2004 as including persons who have an acquired gender through the possession of a GRC" or not.

I don't see how you get from there to the legal disposition of Kenwood Ladies’ Pond—or any other services formerly offered to both transgender and cisgender women—but presumably Cooper does and I do appreciate you bringing his legal reasoning to my attention.
Click to expand...
At the very least, they will absolutely need to change the name. They cannot legally call it a Ladies' Pond if it allows use by males.
 
d4m10n said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely exhausted from your linguistic shenanigans. Are you seriously gonna stand on that hill and insist that the word "lady" means something entirely and completely different from the word "woman" and therefore labeling a space as "ladies" instead of "women" can sidestep the ruling entirely because words are magic?
 
d4m10n said:
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?
Click to expand...

I don't need to consult a solicitor personally, I just have to read the interpretations published by legal experts who do understand these things. What you describe is exactly the situation. There's currently a lot of kicking and screaming going on, but the law is perfectly clear.
 
d4m10n said:
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?
Click to expand...
Dentons - see my earlier reply

it no longer seems permissible to draw the dividing line by anything other than biological sex– so the old approach of allowing individuals to change facility to accord with their trans identity does not seem coherent (as that would create a blurred divide and no legal basis for excluding all men from female facilities, for example).
Click to expand...
 
d4m10n said:
No, the meat of the ruling is about what "woman" and "man" means in the Equality Act 2010.
Click to expand...

Wrong. That is a very simplified summary in the conclusion. You really should read the whole decision - it is freely available online in a searchable PDF format. Links to it have been posted here several times. I have read it, and I can tell you its a lot more involved and nuanced than that.... @Emily's Cat is correct when she says that "What they can't do is simultaneously limit use to females and *some* males." is the meat of the decision.

...and no, I am not going to do your homework for you. It is you who claims the decision doesn't mean what others are telling you it means. The burden of proof is on you.
 
I did do his homework for him and all he said was, it just says "may" or "can", it doesn't say it's obligatory. Absolute failure to understand the basic structure of the argument.
 
On another issue...

www.bbc.com

Met Police says it will no longer investigate non-crime hate incidents

The move comes as an investigation into Father Ted creator Graham Linehan is dropped, after his arrest over a post on X.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com

The announcement came as the Met confirmed it was dropping a probe into Father Ted creator Graham Linehan after he was arrested at Heathrow Airport on suspicion of inciting violence in posts on X.​
​
"This decision means that no charges will be brought against Graham Linehan in relation to this allegation," a detective wrote in an email to the comic on Monday.​
​
Mr Linehan and the Free Speech Union (FSU), an advocacy group, vowed to sue the Metropolitan Police for wrongful arrest and interference with his free speech rights.​

I hope he sues their arses!!
 
He will.

But the Met speaks with forked tongue. Further down the article they say the'll still keep these on file.
 
Emily's Cat said:
They interpreted existing constitutional rights, and extended those to include "privacy" within them.
Click to expand...
None of the existing constitutional rights held even a family resemblance to the rights which came forth in Griswold; the authors of the 14th Amendment would be shocked (and probably appalled) by the notion that women have a constitutional right to decide when to become pregnant. That said, the ruling still counts as moral progress even if the "penumbras and emanations" are only visible to the high priesthood.
Aber said:
Dentons
Click to expand...
Your earlier reply was about services which purport to be offering single-sex services, which the CLC explicitly denies doing with respect to the HH ponds. What they are trying to do instead is offer three distinct kinds of mixed-sex services.
Rolfe said:
There's currently a lot of kicking and screaming going on, but the law is perfectly clear.
Click to expand...
Not according to Dentons.

Updated statutory guidance would be very helpful. However, it is unlikely to provide complete certainty to those following it – there could still be legal challenges based either on its expression of the law or on the way an organisation has put the rules into practice in a particular case.​

It's even muddier than that, though, since the EHRC withdrew their interim guidance.

smartcooky said:
"What they can't do is simultaneously limit use to females and *some* males." is the meat of the decision.
Click to expand...
I don't think it makes any sense to pretend you've summed up the core of the decision when the court already did so in their own words and it looks nothing like what you've said above.

If any of you are willing to confidently predict that the British courts will eventually force the ladies' pond to once again become a fully single-sex service based on birth sex (except for androgenized females) I'm willing to entertain long term wagers on that specific outcome.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
I don't think it makes any sense to pretend you've summed up the core of the decision when the court already did so in their own words and it looks nothing like what you've said above.
Click to expand...

The text of the decision pretty much covers everything you have been talking about here. Sure, every detailed scenario you can dream up is not going to be individually mentioned - no law does that. It would be like claiming that killing someone with a candlestick in the ballroom is not covered by the law because neither ballrooms nor candlesticks are mentioned in the laws related to murder.

At the moment you are trying to draw conclusions about scenarios you have dreamed up, without having all the information you need.
I reiterate... read the bloody decision... the WHOLE bloody decision... all 87 pages/268 paragraphs of the decision, and it will answer many of your questions.

Here it is again, I strongly suggest you avail yourself of the opportunity...

 
The swimming pond is not some unique situation that can have its own special rules. It has to follow the same rules as all other restricted services. If the pond can simply say, this is not a single-sex service however male people who are not trans are excluded, then so can every toilet, changing room and rape crisis facility in the country. Let's see if that turns out to be legal, shall we?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom