Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

What makes you think it doesn't?

From what I have seen, it appears that all posts are (mostly) treated with respect, yes they can be disagreed with, be argued with; but that's not wrong, that's fine.

Yes disagree with someone else's viewpoint or feeling, or how they see themselves; that's OK; argue it but do it with respect for them and respect for their viewpoint.

There is a post further up this thread which refers to 'mental illness'. Now OK, I sort of get what the poster is referring to, but 'illness', implies something 'wrong' which presumably could be 'cured'. No, no. they are not ill, their biology is slightly different to the rest of us, fine, they are perfectly normal human beings. Maybe we just need to accommodate the reality that not everyone nicely fits into a binary set.

Now having said that, we have an obvious issue one person's rights might well collide with another's. I have to agree with the recent Supreme Court's ruling, 'can a trans woman, have the absolute right to access a women-only space'? And I have to come down on the side of no.

And I'm sorry, I'm sure there are many, many trans-women who feel they have been marginalised, they genuinely see themselves as women and feel discriminated against (which, I suppose technically they are), but still!

There's not an easy, obvious solution, and if anyone has any ideas, I'm more than happy to see them.

---------- Post added at 20:16 ---------- Previous post was at 20:06 ----------


---------- Post added at 20:18 ---------- Previous post was at 20:16 ----------

OK yes I see what you mean, but by 'here' I meant on this forum; which I still maintain is fairly neutral and open to entertain a wide range of opinions.

But yes there have been a few, somewhat alarming incidences reported as late And this is wrong, absolutely wrong and the police absolutely have to be held to account for some, not all, of their actions.

Incidentally, totally off topic, are you the same Seph as posts on the Virgin Media forums?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Quote:

Woman who lost job after tweeting view on biological sex awarded £100,000

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...00-by-tribunal

I'm keeping this to opinion rather than a shift from opinion to discrimination.



---------- Post added at 20:22 ---------- Previous post was at 20:20 ----------

Might of!

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

2 years ago :confused:

That’s Maya Forstater, and she is now a leading voice in the gender critical movement in the UK because of the stand she took. It is routinely cited as ‘the Forstater ruling’.

---------- Post added at 21:31 ---------- Previous post was at 21:29 ----------

In not unrelated news, J K Rowling has set up a legal action fund which women can apply to for help chasing wrongdoing employers and other organisations who abuse their sex-based rights. The reality is that rather too many bodies are digging their heels in post FWS v Scot Gov, which leaves them wide open to litigation because the SC has made it very, very clear what failure to comply with the Equality Act looks like.

https://jkrwf.org/

Sandie Peggie, presently pursuing NHS Fife and Dr Theodore “Beth” Upton at an employment tribunal, is now suing the Royal College of Nursing because it refused to support her case, which it arguably was contractually obliged to do, but did not - for reasons seemingly to do with their ideological commitment to genderwoo.

It’s unclear whether JKR is helping fund that action or not.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

But she lost the original case in 2019, and the final decision was in 2022.
This about the original hearing.
81 page decision to summarise this amount of info:-

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

So what? The higher court decision overturns the lower one. FWS lost at a lower court on their way to the Supreme Court. But the decision of the highest court is the definitive one.

Didn’t you understand that’s how it works?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Shows the mentality in the Tribunals. Is it ok for Tribunal Judges to have the opinion that her views were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”?
Not always possible to have grounds for appeal, no matter how wrong the decision was.
Still took 3 years, a large amount of documentation, a QC and counsel all for 15 days(On: 7 - 11, 14-18, 21-23 March 2022. In Chambers 5 & 7 April 2022) of the hearing. Not everyone could afford all that.
That would imply that no other Employment Tribunal or higher authority had ruled that way before. Only a reported Tribunal decision carries any weight.
If some other business or organisation lost a similar appeal, they might be prepared financially to appeal further up the chain, which could mean the principles would be overturned yet again.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

All very good points (though I wish you’d actually make your points first time instead of farting links and assuming people know what you’re saying ;) )

I agree, there is an imbalance in the system, especially when the wrongdoing is coming from a public body like an NHS trust or even the Scottish Government. They have in-house legal counsel and effectively unlimited funds to fight cases on even fairly spurious grounds because the people who take the decisions to go to court aren’t the ones who have to pay. And they can always argue that best use of public funds is always to fight as long as possible to avoid a public body being left with legal liability for something.

It is this very situation that JK Rowling seems to be trying to address by offering to fund women who have a case to pursue but lack the unlimited resources of their opponent.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

It's been said elsewhere that a similar case taken to the Supreme Court could well result in a different decision.

If correct, how would this fit in with the decision that we're talking about here :confused:

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

That’s not correct.

The Supreme Court is in the business of stating definitively what the laws passed by parliament actually mean. They have established that in the Equality Act 2010 the term ‘woman’ means, and has always meant, biologically female, as observed at birth, because that is consistent with the broader aims of the Act (which protects gender reassignment as a separate category) and previous anti-discrimination legislation, in which the modern faux-confusion over what a woman is simply wasn’t an issue at all.

The Supreme Court just will not make a ruling in any similar case that in any way contradicts what it has just ruled here. Why on earth would it do so?

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

Thanks for explaining. This clarifies that it's not just a precedent for any similar cases brought before the Supreme Court.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

The Supreme Court’s job is to be the final arbiter of what the law means. It uses certain basic principles in doing so, amongst which is to assume that words carry their natural meaning.

Nicola Sturgeon is in the Sunday Times this morning bleating that the judgment has been ‘over interpreted’ - this is an emerging attack line from genderists, who are increasingly trying to claim that because For Women Scotland v Scottish Government was really only about the meaning of ‘woman’ in the Equality Act 2010, it’s not on to try to impose their definition that a woman is a biological female anywhere else.

The reality is, the SC judgment is a crystal clear case study in how that court defaults to the natural meaning of words in resolving any supposed ambiguity. Those who opposed For Women Scotland seem to have thought they could convince the court that parliament meant to include so-called transwomen in their women’s protections, but the court rejected this because there is a rich history of anti-discrimination law on our statute books which uses the word ‘woman’ often and it is therefore very obvious what the natural meaning of the word is. If Parliament had meant to indicate that ‘woman’ meant something else in the EA2010, it would have to have said so explicitly. It did not.

So, there may be other areas of law, and other acts of parliament, where the SC has not explicitly defined ‘woman’ yet, and some fantasists in the gender cult may have convinced themselves that one day they can get one of these laws in front of the SC and get it to hand down a different definition of ‘woman’, but the reality is that because the SC has very clearly ruled based on the natural, historically proven definition of ‘woman’ as biological female, it just isn’t going to reach any different conclusion about any other Act of Parliament unless that Act is very explicit in its intention to give the word a different definition for the purposes of that Act.

I am not a lawyer, but I am not aware of anywhere in our body of law where the definition of ‘woman’ is handled in that way at all - not even in the gender recognition legislation.

Re: The gender ideology thread
 

World Boxing’s new eligibility testing regime is to include sex testing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/boxing/a...s/cq54ylnz8eyo

The announcement takes time to state that Imane Khelif will not be permitted to compete in the women’s division without taking a sex test first.

Those with long memories may recall this became a cause celebre last summer at the Paris Olympics with rather too many people determined to conflate DSDs (disorders of sexual development) with the broader trans-rights cult and to insist that Khelif is actually woman on the basis of what’s printed in a passport, despite there being credible evidence not only that Khelif is a biological male but also precisely which DSD he suffers from that would have led to an incorrect observation of sex as female at birth that may have gone unnoticed until puberty.

The whole thing is a bit of a mess because those with DSDs are deserving of compassion and understanding and ought not to become human shields for autogynaephiliac men who want to dress up and play women’s sports. Though my sympathy in this case is tempered by the very obvious state of affairs here - Khelif might have been recorded as female and brought up as a girl, but he and his team undoubtedly knew he was male, with male advantage, when they sent him into the boxing ring to beat up young women in Paris last summer.

---------- Post added at 21:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

I think it’s well worth re-quoting this post, which is post #2 from this thread.

I said at the time that this assertion was unsupported by the available facts. Given that until 24 hours ago both Khelif’s team and the Eindhoven competition organisers were insisting he was going to take part, I assume Khelif will now simply take the sex test and carry right on, seeing as ‘she is a female boxer and always has been female.’

:scratch:

I think Martine Croxall was right
 

Her correcting the autocue is, hopefully, the beginning of the end for political correctness. The term 'pregnant people' is grammatical nonsense - the term 'people' is generic, covering men, women and children. But men can't be pregnant (without drastic surgery), nor (without premature puberty) can young girls, and boys can't, either. There is one, and only one, kind of person who can be pregnant: A WOMAN.

It seems Martine is of the 'call a spade a spade' crowd. Good. We need more like her.

Not that I watch TV, of course; I found out about this via random surfing. :p:

Political correctness is garbage and does need to go away!!!