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.