Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36194838)

I’m gutted for my friend Danielle but in the bigger picture…I just don’t know if this was the right ruling or not. Time will tell how attitudes pan out however the decision will only make decisive attitudes even wider.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194836)

So does this ruling mean that people must be defined as the gender that they were born as? If, for example, a male to female trans person has had their penis removed in favour of a vagina, does this make a difference?

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194840)

The thing about the Supreme Court is that the law is whatever they say it is. They are the final word. It is the right ruling because it’s the ruling they made.

I hear lots of trans activists insisting it’s just an opinion. They are wrong. It is the definitive opinion; the binding one, not just on what the law is right now, but what it always has been. That’s the bit some of them haven’t twigged yet, and which HR departments up and down the country will be absolutely pooing their pants over today.

To take one current example - it is now beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Darlington Nurses, and Sandie Peggie in Fife, were asking for nothing more than their legal rights when they told their employers they did not want to share their single-sex changing room with a man.

The NHS in Darlington and in Fife seems to have been content to insist that it was fair for them to treat the men in question as if they were women. The Supreme Court has made clear that the NHS was wrong in law to do so. And it does not matter that these events are in the past, months or years before this ruling, because the Supreme Cour’s rulings don’t make the law, they clarify what laws passed by Parliament actually mean. And the Equality Act has been on the statute book for 15 years now.

Your friend Danielle still has his rights under the EA 2010 not to be discriminated against on the basis of his trans-identity (in which I assume he says he feels like a she). But he is not entitled to the protections afforded to women under the EA2010 because he is not a woman.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36194800)

But even that is an incorrect assessment.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:04 ----------



You can’t change your biology, so the terms woman and female now refer to biological sex (why we need a court to decide this proves how far into hell we have already descended)

There is no context required.

Woman, female = not a man.

---------- Post added at 21:13 ---------- Previous post was at 21:10 ----------



They’ll usually be about 5’8” maximum, and look like a bearded woman.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194840)

The thing about the Supreme Court is that the law is whatever they say it is. They are the final word. It is the right ruling because it’s the ruling they made.

I hear lots of trans activists insisting it’s just an opinion. They are wrong. It is the definitive opinion; the binding one, not just on what the law is right now, but what it always has been. That’s the bit some of them haven’t twigged yet, and which HR departments up and down the country will be absolutely pooing their pants over today.

To take one current example - it is now beyond any doubt whatsoever that the Darlington Nurses, and Sandie Peggie in Fife, were asking for nothing more than their legal rights when they told their employers they did not want to share their single-sex changing room with a man.

The NHS in Darlington and in Fife seems to have been content to insist that it was fair for them to treat the men in question as if they were women. The Supreme Court has made clear that the NHS was wrong in law to do so. And it does not matter that these events are in the past, months or years before this ruling, because the Supreme Cour’s rulings don’t make the law, they clarify what laws passed by Parliament actually mean. And the Equality Act has been on the statute book for 15 years now.

Your friend Danielle still has his rights under the EA 2010 not to be discriminated against on the basis of his trans-identity (in which I assume he says he feels like a she). But he is not entitled to the protections afforded to women under the EA2010 because he is not a woman.

---------- Post added at 18:55 ---------- Previous post was at 18:43 ----------



No, it would not make a difference so far as the Equality Act 2010 is concerned.

Let’s not lose sight of what the court has ruled on here, and what it has not ruled on. It has not ruled on an individual’s right to get surgery and change their name from Dave to Davina. It has not ruled on a man’s right to put on a dress and ask people to refer to him as ‘she’. And it has not ruled on anyone else’s right to refuse to do so, on the basis that he is in reality, immutably, a man. Those things were what they were on Monday and they are still what they are today.

The Supreme Court ruling relates to the Equality Act 2010 and whether someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate, which entitles them to change their passport and birth certificate and be treated by the State by their newly certified gender rather than their biological sex, has also acquired the rights conferred on the sex they have “changed” to. The Scottish Government claimed that a trans-identifying male has the rights afforded to women under the Equality Act. The Supreme Court says they do not, because a gender recognition certificate cannot change biological reality.

In truth this is a problem the last Labour government ought to have seen coming. Legislating to create a legal fiction is always fraught with difficulty no matter how well intentioned.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194844)

Thanks for explaining. I had assumed that the NHS women had objected because some trans people elect not to have their genitalia surgically changed and they were fearful of sexual assault by a penis, this is why I asked what I did.

I can understand why they would object to a M to F person who is sexually attracted to females being in a place where they are in a state of undress, but the person may be sexually attracted to men, whose to know! Also, would they object to getting changed with a naturally born woman who happens to be a lesbian?

I suppose males and females being segregated in places where they get undressed goes back to the days where it was assumed that all men fancied women and all women fancy men. Perhaps changing rooms should be segregated according to whether one is gay or straight!

There again, women still wouldn't be safe as some men may lie in order to gain access to undressed females.

And what about those who are bisexual etc??

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194844)

Thanks for explaining. I had assumed that the NHS women had objected because some trans people elect not to have their genitalia surgically changed and they were fearful of sexual assault by a penis, this is why I asked what I did.

I can understand why they would object to a M to F person who is sexually attracted to females being in a place where they are in a state of undress, but the person may be sexually attracted to men, whose to know! Also, would they object to getting changed with a naturally born woman who happens to be a lesbian?

I suppose males and females being segregated in places where they get undressed goes back to the days where it was assumed that all men fancied women and all women fancy men. Perhaps changing rooms should be segregated according to whether one is gay or straight!

There again, women still wouldn't be safe as some men may lie in order to gain access to undressed females.

And what about those who are bisexual etc??

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194879)

The basic argument is for dignity, privacy and safety. It ought to be a given in society that women ought to be able to use the toilet or get changed for work without men in close proximity. Whether or not the man in question is actually likely to assault them is a distant secondary consideration and in fact is a regular strawman put up by trans activists. Why should they have men listening to them, or looking at them? Why should women who have suffered sexual assault in the past have to suffer being told, while at a rape crisis centre, that it is their responsibility to ‘re frame their trauma’ when they learn that the person in charge of the centre is a man larping as a woman (this actually happened in Edinburgh)?

Originally Posted by Russ (Post 36194887)

I know you're not aiming that at anyone in particular, which ought to go without saying.

Given my long conversations with Dan over the past 2 decades, I'd stake my reputation that she'd never think that way or commit such crimes.

But as we all know, one person is one too many. It does happen.

I remain conflicted on this. I'm glad people like her still have protection in Law for their trans status. One of the only viable way forward to suit as many people as possible would be more gender-neutral toilets etc which of course will trigger many bigotted-types until it's been pointed out to them that disabled toilets have been that way for decades.

My employer has a LGBTQ+ forum group which is open to all, and we meet up each month. I joined so I could learn how to be a better Straight Ally, however, this does not mean I agree with all views put forward. This will no doubt be the main topic of discussion at the next meeting, and I'm eager to hear all opinions on the day.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194879)

Not to put too fine a point on it, but a sexual assault can be carried out by a man even after he’s had his Johnson removed.

The basic argument is for dignity, privacy and safety. It ought to be a given in society that women ought to be able to use the toilet or get changed for work without men in close proximity. Whether or not the man in question is actually likely to assault them is a distant secondary consideration and in fact is a regular strawman put up by trans activists. Why should they have men listening to them, or looking at them? Why should women who have suffered sexual assault in the past have to suffer being told, while at a rape crisis centre, that it is their responsibility to ‘re frame their trauma’ when they learn that the person in charge of the centre is a man larping as a woman (this actually happened in Edinburgh)?

Trans activists have been getting away with it because of the ludicrous claim that a ‘trans woman is a woman’, which far too many organisations, especially in the public sector, have been too willing to take as given. Even though the Supreme Court ruling this week dealt only specifically with how this relates to the Equality Act 2010, the fact that the highest court in the land has this week spoken in terms of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ being immutable biological categories has shifted the dial on this whole debate. And a good thing it is too.

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194893)

The problem that the NHS woman would have with gender neutral toilets is that any man could enter, not just trans people, so they'd view it as being worse.

In order to comply with the law, a lot of licensed premises are making the female toilets gender neutral from this weekend.

It's a complicated issue. I saw a programme the other day where men who take on female roles aren't classed as men or women, but as something else. I can't remember the term, it was in India I think.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36194897)

Most Gender Neutral toilets are single user rooms, like Disabled/Baby Changing rooms.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36194896)

Indeed not. But if you do, never forget the wise words of Monty Python ;)

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36194904)

True, but a lot of commercial premises are now making their female toilets gender neutral in order to both comply with the law and ensure that those who identify as female and/or have undergone gender reassignment surgery don't have to face the embarrassment or safety concerns of using a male only toilet.

---------- Post added at 00:16 ---------- Previous post was at 00:15 ----------



Eh?