Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
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.
|
This is what I mean.
I genuinely don't know where I stand on this. Naturally, I lean towards heavy sympathy for my friend and what this is putting her through. On the other hand the safety of female-born biological women is paramount.
I don't know where I stand regarding genders, pronouns etc however it makes no difference to my life if someone wants to change who or what they identify as and would like to be called.
What I would object to is some kind of legal diktat that says I (or anyone)
must use someone's chosen gender or pronoun. I refer to Dan as she/her because I want to be kind to my friend. Never once has she implied or requested I should do so, if she had then it would make things awkward however Danielle is not that kind of person.
I get what you say about agreeing to using pronouns may well encourage trans people to push for further rights/entitlements; I've not personally encountered that so I can't say how I'd feel about that either.
One thing is certain IMO - this ruling is not a case of "one side beating the other".