Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

I want you to take punctuation seriously.

Not as much as I want you to just fark off.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I expect there have been a few things you have desperately wanted which have proved to be unattainable.

 

[AndyRM]

Since we've somehow got to Hastings, it's one of my favourite Godspeed You! Black Emperor songs (well East Hastings, but let's not be too pedantic).


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9Ty3YnWN80

 

[monkers]

I expect there have been a few things you have desperately wanted which have proved to be unattainable.

I guess if you count each bigot as a separate entity then you'll be correct. However I see you, Stock, Minsull, Tommy Robinson, Farage, Andrew Tate and all the other braindead Trumpwit bigots to collectively fark off.

I don't wish for material things, I have all I need.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

However I see you, Stock, Minsull, Tommy Robinson, Farage, Andrew Tate and all the other braindead Trumpwit bigots to collectively fark off.

And we see you @monkers. Tiresome, it is.

 

[monkers]

And we see you @monkers. Tiresome, it is.

Your name is also along the list along with the Dutch moron.

 

[Bromptonaut]

@AuroraSaab are there reported cases where people with a GRC have been excluded from particular events or facilities.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The GRA was a muddy piece of legislation intended to give trans people the chance to have birth certificates, passports, data recorded and so on in their acquired gender. It allowed them to be buried under their acquired gender and name in official records.

I doubt anybody thought in 2004 that it would be used to undermine single sex spaces and services.

All those purposes but you don't mention the primary one, and the driver for it all, marriage in your acquired gender.

I was, professionally, peripherally involved with the GRA and you may well be right.

Can I ask you where GRCs have in reality not the heads of you and your GC friends, have been used to undermine single sex spaces and services.

And, before you try it, Heather in the women's bogs at the office was not undermining anybody.

 

[AuroraSaab]

All those purposes but you don't mention the primary one, and the driver for it all, marriage in your acquired gender.

Not a deliberate omission on my part.

Can I ask you where GRCs have in reality not the heads of you and your GC friends, have been used to undermine single sex spaces and services.

As you know, you're not allowed to ask if someone has a GRC so how would we know?
It's certainly promted on here as trumping the Equality Act permitted exclusions.

Those with a GRC are still recorded on prison stats as their acquired sex, which skews the stats. Trans groups have long campaigned to get rid of the spousal exit clause - ie a GRC can be given without a divorce being granted - meaning partners would be in a same sex marriage without their consent.

This is the patronising tone about women's welfare which indicates who you prefer to put first.

And, before you try it, Heather in the women's bogs at the office was not undermining anybody.

Well that's your opinion isn't it? It might not be the opinion of the women, colleagues or strangers, who have to share with Heather. You are consenting on their behalf.

I don't actually object to GRC's, as long as it's understood they don't provide access to same sex services and spaces.

 

[Bromptonaut]

@AuroraSaab so, as I said, there is no evidence that possession of a GRC is being used to undermine single sex spaces etc.

I merely used Heather as an example. If she went into the next cubicle to you, did her business and left after washing her hands you'd be none the wiser.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You could say the same of any man using women's toilets. Are you in favour of any man being allowed to use women's toilets? If not, why not?

Why can't Heather do their business and wash their hands in the Men's loos? You'd be none the wiser.

You could of course campaign for additional 3rd unisex spaces for Heather and co but you don't. You just expect women and girls to accommodate them.

 

[monkers]

You could say the same of any man using women's toilets. Are you in favour of any man being allowed to use women's toilets? If not, why not?

N here

@AuroraSaab

Aurora this is why your argument will always lead to failure. There is no necessity to examine this position via the lens of legal argument; the application of the simplest form of logic is sufficient. Bromptonaut had not used the example of 'any man', and since in law, 'any man' does not have the legal protection of a GRC, the point is moot. Neither had Bromptonaut argued in favour of allowing 'any man' into any facility; so again the point is moot.

Looking instead to an understanding given in law, one must understand that in 2002 the government were continuing along the line of resistance offered by the previous government to affording legal protection of persons diagnosed as transsexuals (the parlance of the day). In the case Christine Goodwin, after failing in her attempts of effective remedy in the UK courts (note the Supreme Court was not in place in 2002 being established later), she took her case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Bromptonaut is correct to say that the right to marry was one complaint that Goodwin brought. However there were others. The ECHR found in favour of the complainant leading to the government being required to introduce the GRA to parliament.

You will understand from my position of being a person with a trans history and a lawyer I am sufficiently familiar with the determination that I can quote large chunks of it verbatim. There is much to read in the judgement; however I will maintain that the words contained within p100 are sufficient to understand the determination. From memory then;

The Court is not persuaded that at the date of this case it can still be assumed that these terms must refer to a determination of gender by purely biological criteria (as held by Ormrod J. in the case of Corbett v. Corbett, paragraph 21 above). There have been major social changes in the institution of marriage since the adoption of the Convention as well as dramatic changes brought about by developments in medicine and science in the field of transsexuality. The Court has found above, under Article 8 of the Convention, that a test of congruent biological factors can no longer be decisive in denying legal recognition to the change of gender of a post-operative transsexual.

I have noted from your previous writing the view, and to paraphrase you, 'gender has now been allowed to trump sex'. Whatever your view of the GRA or the EqA, you need to understand that parliament intended it to be so in order to adhere to the determination of the European Court of Human Rights. You must also understand that the UK Human Rights Act is effectively cut and paste of European law which in turn is cut and paste of the UN.

On your point concerning 'clarification'. Clarification is a process most often initiated in judiciary. In the UK judges are required to consider not only UK law but European law. If their opinion is that UK law and European law are in contention, then there is the requirement to formally write to relevant minister. The minister may then adjust wording to clarify what parliament intended. Parliament may indeed legislate at will, and may even legislate in knowledge that is contention to European law, but that is rare and controversial.

I have no doubt that you will continue to say that at the time of the introduction of the EqA that some members of the public will have assumed that the term 'sex' gave way only to considerations of 'biological sex'. However despite what assumptions may have been made, legislators would have been clear that despite 'sex' not being defined as 'biological sex' within the act, its meaning would follow the legal reasoning of the ECHR directive from the Goodwin case.

In fact legislators would have been familiar with the opening words of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 ...

Human Rights Act 1998

1998 CHAPTER 42

An Act to give further effect to rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights; to make provision with respect to holders of certain judicial offices who become judges of the European Court of Human Rights; and for connected purposes. [9th November 1998] Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

At this point you will now need to understand that the EQA can not be 'clarified' by such amendments that seek to redefine 'sex'. This is because the Human Rights Act 1998 guarantees the rights and freedoms of all UK citizens.

This leads us to your claim concerning the EHRC and delegated powers. The EHRC is required to use delegated powers to enforce not just the EqA but convention rights guaranteed by the UK Human Rights Act. In setting out the guidelines, the EHRC did so in the full knowledge of the staff there that it did so at the will of Baroness Falkner as a political appointment made by those with the desire to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights, and not within the context of prevailing law. Falkner survived the ordeal because further political interference halted the investigation, and not because the claims against her were disproved.

 

[AuroraSaab]

And yet Emily Bridges is still allowed only to compete in the male category for cycling and men are no longer being put in women's jails.
You'd think there would have been dozens of court cases for discrimination by now.

You have to wonder why it was a stated aim of Stonewall to remove the single sex exemptions of the Equality Act if they have never existed in the first place as you claim.

 

[classic33]

And yet Emily Bridges is still allowed only to compete in the male category for cycling and men are no longer being put in women's jails.
You'd think there would have been dozens of court cases for discrimination by now.

You have to wonder why it was a stated aim of Stonewall to remove the single sex exemptions of the Equality Act if they have never existed in the first place as you claim.

Emily Bridges is only allowed to compete in the separate third class, created for trans men, trans women and men who decide to compete in it.

If you were being honest to yourself, and your claims of equality, you'd not be wanting those you see as women having to compete against those you see as men.

 

[monkers]

And yet Emily Bridges is still allowed only to compete in the male category for cycling and men are no longer being put in women's jails.
You'd think there would have been dozens of court cases for discrimination by now.

You have to wonder why it was a stated aim of Stonewall to remove the single sex exemptions of the Equality Act if they have never existed in the first place as you claim.

N here.

I'm unclear to whom this addressed to. If it addressed to me, then you are mistaken to say that I have claimed that there are no single sex exemptions written into the EqA.

As far as I know, it was never policy or practice to put men into women's jails.

In the case of Emily Bridges, she has my sympathy for the manner in which she was treated by British Cycling.