The gender ideology thread

[Sephiroth]

Woodpeckers soon to become redundant!

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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?

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.

[Russ]

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".

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

Only applies to the Equality Act 2010.

265. We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning.
(i) The question for the court is a question of statutory interpretation; we are concerned with the meaning of the provisions of the EA 2010 in the light of section 9 of the GRA (para 2).
...
(vi) The context in which the EA 2010 was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 definitions of “man” and “woman” referred to biological sex and trans people had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
...
(xviii) We therefore conclude that the provisions of the EA 2010 which we have discussed are provisions to which section 9(3) of the GRA 2004 applies. The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the EA 2010 is biological and not certificated sex. Any other interpretation would render the EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate (para 264).

The judgment repeatedly refers to biological male/female with a GRC as being legally female/male. The Equality Act 2010 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, refer to a woman being a female of any age. That is the source of these arguments. The Act of 1975 didn't consider that the legal definition of "female" might change in the future.
Further more, the judgment highlights that the "protected characteristic" of the Quality Act etc, applies to perceived characteristic, not actual.

251. Take, for example, a trans woman who applies for a job as a sales representative and the sales manager thinks that she is a biological woman because of her appearance and does not offer her the job even though she performed best at interview and gives the job instead to a biological man. She would have a claim for direct discrimination because of her perceived sex and her comparator would be someone who is not perceived to be a woman. The fact that she is not a biological woman should make no difference to her claim, which would be treated in the same way as a direct discrimination claim made by a biological woman based on the sex of the complainant herself.

And yet the judgment contradicts itself by saying that quotas are to be based upon biological sex, not perceived sex.
Sports

236. On the other hand, a biological definition of sex would mean that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1).

[RichardCoulter]

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.

---------- 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.

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??

[Itshim]

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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??

The answer I would give .........

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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??

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chris

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)?

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.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

[Mr K]

Gender is irrelevant. Are they a nice person or not is the main thing.

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Chris

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.

Oh yes, nobody necessarily needs a penis in order to sexually assault somebody.

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

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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.

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

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

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

Eh?

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

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?

Citation/source, please?