Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

That's fair.

Although I reckon a third "gender neutral" (for want of a better term) provision should be there too, then there would be no uncertainty.

Except that it willfully overlooks the requirements of the GRA ignoring as it does that for the purposes of the act, trans women with a GRC legally are women and female, and that trans men with a GRC are legally men and male. This is the part that Aurora and her gender critical chums choose to ignore.

When the EqA was initially proposed, it was intended to be a single equality act. To this end other equality legislation was largely replaced. At the time that the EqA was put before parliament it agreed that the GRA must remain since its inception was rooted in response to a directive from the European Court of Human Rights.

This is set to be tested in the UK Supreme Court in November. As has become usual, trans people are not invited to be involved in the testing of these cases, since those bringing the cases are well-funded by American money, typically billionaire backed evangelical Christian organisations. In this case Dr Whittle and Dr McCloud will be involved in defending trans rights from the barrage of cases that trans people have not be able to fund to defend.

 

[AndyRM]

Except that it willfully overlooks the requirements of the GRA ignoring as it does that for the purposes of the act, trans women with a GRC legally are women and female, and that trans men with a GRC are legally men and male. This is the part that Aurora and her gender critical chums choose to ignore.

When the EqA was initially proposed, it was intended to be a single equality act. To this end other equality legislation was largely replaced. At the time that the EqA was put before parliament it agreed that the GRA must remain since its inception was rooted in response to a directive from the European Court of Human Rights.

This is set to be tested in the UK Supreme Court in November. As has become usual, trans people are not invited to be involved in the testing of these cases, since those bringing the cases are well-funded by American money, typically billionaire backed evangelical Christian organisations. In this case Dr Whittle and Dr McCloud will be involved in defending trans rights from the barrage of cases that trans people have not be able to fund to defend.

I don't disagree with you either.

 

[AuroraSaab]

For the gazillioneth time, the Equality Act allows exclusion of people on the basis of their birth sex, when appropriate. You keep saying it doesn't. It does. The EHRC have made it clear that it does,

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

If a gender recognition certificate trumped the Equality Act anyone with a grc would be able to go in the prison of their adopted gender. They can't . They couldn't be excluded from certain jobs. They can be.

The story of American/Evangelical Christians bankrolling UK feminists is more unevidenced rubbish. KJ Keen might have had some freebies but every gender critical court case has been almost exclusively funded by hundreds of people giving small amounts.

 

[classic33]

You've routinely put forward the case for trans identifying men being in women's prisons and sports. You continually suggest that there is some other reason for this - other than the glaringly obvious safety or fairness - which indicates that you don't think women and girls deserve safety and fairness. If you did, you wouldn't advocate for men being in their prisons or sports.

I have repeatedly said men deserve single sex spaces in certain circumstances for their privacy and dignity. They rarely need it for safety unless they are boys in a situation with men. I have no idea how you have imagined I have ever said otherwise.

Have I?
Please provide the names of those people, and places.

Women are just as high a risk to boys as men are, despite your claims.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Women are just as high a risk to boys as men are, despite your claims.

Please provide the evidence for your claim.
I think the UK stats for violent offences against children and sexual offences against children under 16 will contradict your statement.

In the biggest study of parental killing undertaken in the UK, which covered 35 years, 90% of the perpetrators were male. (Even though the primary carer for most children will be female).

https://www.pegsupport.co.uk/first-large-scale-study-of-parental-killing-in-england-and-wales

Outside the home it's rarer still. There were 10 knife crime killings of under 16 year olds in 2022/23 for example, all with male perpetrators/suspects.

 

[classic33]

Please provide the evidence for your claim.
I think the UK stats for violent offences against children and sexual offences against children under 16 will contradict your statement.

In the biggest study of parental killing undertaken in the UK, which covered 35 years, 90% of the perpetrators were male. (Even though the primary carer for most children will be female).

https://www.pegsupport.co.uk/first-large-scale-study-of-parental-killing-in-england-and-wales

Outside the home it's rarer still. There were 10 knife crime killings of under 16 year olds in 2022/23 for example, all with male perpetrators/suspects.

We've been down this road before. You disputed the facts because they didn't match what you were saying.

Now I'm still waiting the names that back up the accusations you made. Then maybe, I'll follow your sidetrack.

 

[monkers]

For the gazillioneth time, the Equality Act allows exclusion of people on the basis of their birth sex, when appropriate. You keep saying it doesn't. It does. The EHRC have made it clear that it does,

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com...-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

View attachment 6710

If a gender recognition certificate trumped the Equality Act anyone with a grc would be able to go in the prison of their adopted gender. They can't . They couldn't be excluded from certain jobs. They can be.

The story of American/Evangelical Christians bankrolling UK feminists is more unevidenced rubbish. KJ Keen might have had some freebies but every gender critical court case has been almost exclusively funded by hundreds of people giving small amounts.

The EHRC act as if they are above the law; they are not. The head of the EHRC was a political appointment.

The law is what parliament intended at the time of passing the law, not how the EHRC would like it to be, or how any individual politicians past or present would like it to be.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The law is what parliament intended at the time of passing the law, not how the EHRC would like it to be, or how any individual politicians past or present would like it to be.

In 2010 nobody ever thought 'male/man' and 'female/woman' in a legislative document would mean anything other than biological men and women. The likes of Stonewall via their training, and you on this forum, have deliberately tried to muddy the understanding of the Equality Act and present the law as you want it to be, not as it is.

The EHRC clarified what it meant and now you don't like it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We've been down this road before. You disputed the facts because they didn't match what you were saying.

You are making the claim. Back it up. Give me the stats.

Meanwhile here's some that prove your claim is your usual bs.

1. Women were only 1% of those charged with sexual offences against children in 2022.

2. In the biggest UK study of parents who kill their children to date, Manchester Uni found that fathers were significantly more likely to kill their children than mothers.

https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/...tudy-into-uk-parents-who-kill-their-children/

Now I'm still waiting the names that back up the accusations you made. Then maybe, I'll follow your sidetrack.

The 'accusation' is that your contribution to this thread has been to give every ridiculous reason under the sun to support men in women's sports and prisons etc. There is no sidetrack. There's simply you, telling us women are as violent and dangerous as men when we all know that's not true in any country in the world, and never has been.

 

[classic33]

You are making the claim. Back it up. Give me the stats.

Meanwhile here's some that prove your claim is your usual bs.

1. Women were only 1% of those charged with sexual offences against children in 2022.
View attachment 6711

2. In the biggest UK study of parents who kill their children to date, Manchester Uni found that fathers were significantly more likely to kill their children than mothers.

View attachment 6713

https://www.manchester.ac.uk/about/...tudy-into-uk-parents-who-kill-their-children/



The 'accusation' is that your contribution to this thread has been to give every ridiculous reason under the sun to support men in women's sports and prisons etc. There is no sidetrack. There's simply you, telling us women are as violent and dangerous as men when we all know that's not true in any country in the world, and never has been.

Read that final paragraph of your pdf screenshot from nearly three hours ago.

You've repeatedly made accusations that when challenged you try to dismiss, or divert the subject because you can't answer them.

So I'll repeat the earlier request for you to back up your accusations, by you providing the names.

You constantly seek to introduce a third class into society, simply because you don't like the people you want to see in that third class of people.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I answer every batshit question you post. You never provide the evidence for what you claim.

Names? The name is you, mate, and your endless assertions to excuse men being in women's spaces - like 'Women are just as violent as men'. Either provide the evidence or find a better argument.

I have no idea what your last paragraph even means.

 

[classic33]

I answer every batshit question you post. You never provide the evidence for what you claim.

Names? The name is you, mate, and your endless assertions to excuse men being in women's spaces - like 'Women are just as violent as men'. Either provide the evidence or find a better argument.

I have no idea what your last paragraph even means.

It wasn't you that said this "I routinely ignore your posts" then, and not just the once either?
So, if we believe what you are now saying I am fighting to get myself into prison. But a womens prison, not just any old prison. You know how daft that makes you look.

Maybe if you stepped away from simply repeating what has been posted elsewhere, you might have a chance of presenting a coherent case. Until then you'll just carry on spouting nonsense.

19:21:11, on the 19th September 2024 for the pdf screenshot I mentioned by the way.

 

[monkers]

The EHRC did not clarify the law - only a relevant minister can attempt that. They produced guidelines according to the view of the head of the EHRC who was a political appointment and a known transphobe - it's why she was appointed.

Badenoch was desperate to interpret the law to 'biological sex', but she knew what parliament had intended. She asked the EHRC how to go about changing the law, but didn't get the answer she liked. Wise up.

No change to the law​

It’s important to bear in mind that the EHRC’s letter is simply an initial response on the benefits of using a definition of biological sex, and does not change the legal position. In fact, the letter makes it very clear that “detailed policy and legal analysis” would be recommended before any changes to the law were considered. It is also important to take into account the fact that this letter was a response to a letter from Kemi Badenoch which asked a specific question about the benefits or otherwise of amending the current definition of sex.

Employers and service providers are still subject to all the same obligations to protect against discrimination, and there is no suggestion that this will change in the near future. We would therefore recommend extreme caution to any employer or service provider relying on the letter as grounds for changing any of its internal approaches or policies to trans-inclusion – not least because of the general response to the letter from the LGBT+ communities and more widely.

https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/ehrc-letter-on-sex-and-the-equality-act

 

[AuroraSaab]

It wasn't you that said this "I routinely ignore your posts" then, and not just the once either?
So, if we believe what you are now saying I am fighting to get myself into prison. But a womens prison, not just any old prison. You know how daft that makes you look.

Maybe if you stepped away from simply repeating what has been posted elsewhere, you might have a chance of presenting a coherent case. Until then you'll just carry on spouting nonsense.

19:21:11, on the 19th September 2024 for the pdf screenshot I mentioned by the way.

Didn't understand any of that.

The EHRC did not clarify the law - only a relevant minister can attempt that. They produced guidelines according to the view of the head of the EHRC who was a political appointment and a known transphobe - it's why she was appointed.

You were quite happy when the former Head of Stonewall, David Isaacs, was Head of the EHRC.
The current Head is a cross bench peer and former head of policy for the Lib Dems so hardly a Tory plant.

https://www.lewissilkin.com/en/insights/ehrc-letter-on-sex-and-the-equality-act

This is an opinion piece. Many other lawyers and academics disagree that there was ever any doubt about what male or female meant in the EA. However even in this piece the writer points out that you can't discriminate against someone for being trans (nobody has said you can) but you can discriminate for being male (or female of course) in certain circumstances.

Which is exactly what the law has always said. The EHRC had to make it clear that's what it said because of people like you trying to undermine the law with deliberate misinformation.

So no, there is no change to the law, because discrimination on the basis of sex has always been allowed.

 

[monkers]

You were quite happy when the former Head of Stonewall, David Isaacs, was Head of the EHRC.
The current Head is a cross bench peer and former head of policy for the Lib Dems so hardly a Tory plant.

I don't remember expressing that I was quite happy when David Isaacs was Head of the EHRC or with Stonewall. Are you sure this is not yet another case of you just making stuff up and putting words into people's mouths?

David Isaacs was not a trans activist. During his years at Stonewall, Stonewall did not represent trans people. That changed later when Ruth Hunt took over.

I particularly love your brand of logic where a Lib Dem can not possibly be gender critical therefore she can not be a plant. Faulkner was not just accused by me of being a transphobe, but by many of the staff who worked there, who incidentally were not trans activists, just appalled at her attitude. Many of them left because of the undue pressure to not accept trans people as human beings.

Anyway back to your claims about the EqA always taking sex to mean biological sex as every man and his dog knew, you are obviously wrong despite you repeating bollocks ad nauseum throughout the thread.

These lines of text are in the response from Faulkner to Badenoch (then the relevant minister) who was determined to try to change the law so that the definition of sex in the EqA would become 'biological sex'.

“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.

“Our response to the Minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK Government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.

“Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.

If you are correct (which you are not) that the EqA takes sex to mean biological sex, then it would not require a change to take such effect.