Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Here they are doing it, on their own web site:
They've obviously walked it back a bit as it was very clearly their aim previously.
Perhaps they've realised public opinion doesn't support men's access to women's spaces. You've done your best for them but male sex offenders in women's prisons and men in women's sports was always going to be a hard sell.
Edit: Also there's a new CEO at Stonewall which might account for the change. Lots of orgs dropping out of the Stonewall training schemes might have influenced it as well.
They've obviously walked it back a bit as it was very clearly their aim previously.
Perhaps they've realised public opinion doesn't support men's access to women's spaces. You've done your best for them but male sex offenders in women's prisons and men in women's sports was always going to be a hard sell.
Edit: Also there's a new CEO at Stonewall which might account for the change. Lots of orgs dropping out of the Stonewall training schemes might have influenced it as well.
Last edited:
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Not biting on your first proposition as we're looking specifically at folks who have a GRC.
Heather's birth certificate says she's a woman. Why should she use the men's or some third space?
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
Because Heather is of the male sex. A GRC - or a reissued birth certificate - doesn't change that. The law allows for single sex spaces based on sex not gender identity.
Why can't Heather use the men's facilities? GRC or not.
From the point of view of women and girls, what's the substantive difference between a man with a GRC and reissued birth certificate and a man without them?
Why can't Heather use the men's facilities? GRC or not.
From the point of view of women and girls, what's the substantive difference between a man with a GRC and reissued birth certificate and a man without them?
Last edited:
monkers
Legendary Member
N here
The law also provides for the privacy of the individual. You were correct to say that it is not permissible to ask a person for sight of their GRC. This is because birth sex is legally a private matter for a person with a GRC. You will understand then that any insistence that a person with a GRC must be obliged to reveal their birth sex any time they require to use a toilet is a contravention of their convention rights. Convention rights can not be 'clarified' by the EHRC in contention with convention rights, since they are the body required to enforce convention rights.
classic33
Me
That from 2017?
For your continued claims on what I'm supposed to have done, names or just shut up!
You're making yourself look a bigger idiot, all by yourself, continuing making these claims.
Editing your post to "add" something that was in the original makes what you did change stand out more.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Service providers are entitled to exclude people on several grounds under the EA if they genuinely believe the person does not meet the criteria (eg age, race, or sex). They don't have to admit a man with a GRC to women's services or facilities just because they aren't supposed to ask him to produce one.
Women are also individuals with a right to privacy, and the rights of a subset of men, GRC or not, does not trump that in UK law.
Women are also individuals with a right to privacy, and the rights of a subset of men, GRC or not, does not trump that in UK law.
monkers
Legendary Member
Human Rights Act 1998.
The EHRC lent themselves open to criticism when they published guidance which is considered by many to be a contravention to convention rights.
The guidance was issued, and the previous guidance withdrawn following the political appointment of Baroness Falkner.
For example, the Fawcett Society - an organisation campaigning for women's rights has concerns.
Aurora, something you need to understand is that Baroness Falkner may feel that she can write guidelines for service providers. She may feel bold enough to advise the judiciary and / or ministers, but her advice has no legal force on those offices.
Even under such advice, a judge will still consider convention rights while constructing a balanced view.
The guidelines state that there is 'a risk of acting unlawfully'.
The most prudent view is to look to legal precedence, something that judges will always do. You will no doubt be familiar with the high court case that examined allocation of trans prisons to the prison estates. The government, principally Dominic Raab was defending a claim. The judge made clear that blanket bans (in general and not just in the case of trans people) are unlawful. It was also made clear that exclusion must meet the test of a high bar.
As a consequence trans prisoners with a GRC can be sent to a prisons that accords with their gender identity and legal sex. There is no default position of admittance or exclusion. The system relies upon risk assessment. All prisoners are risk assessed on entry.
My own take on the guidelines is that they are unworkable. They rely on some judgement on whether a person appears they might be trans or not. In my own case, I am not challenged because I look no less female than an average female. If I were to be challenged, I would simply maintain that I am female.
I will be interesting to hear your proposal for a further test to prevent me from entering a female public toilet, and one that does not offend the dignity of cisgender women when entering a similar space.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Squire
This post sums up the argument you have made throughout this thread: 'I don't like the law so I'm going to pretend it doesn't exist ... anyway I think it's biased so it's not binding .... ok it's law but it's trumped by other more nebulous laws'.
It's not really about toilets as you well know.
How tedious to keep going over the same stuff while you pretend there's no such thing as single sex services and spaces.
Fabulous review of Eddie's one person show in the Standard, Matticus.
https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/...t-one-woman-show-theatre-review-b1160734.html
"The later scenes .... are so embarrassing I almost cringed up my own fundament".
He's a decent actor in the right part but he's not a Shakespearean actor.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
Like you, her birth certificate says she's female.
I'm not sure why that's difficult to grasp.
monkers
Legendary Member
I take this to mean that following N's recent interventions that the penny has now finally dropped.
AuroraSaab
Squire
It's not hard to grasp that Heather remains male either but you seem to struggle with it.
A piece of paper doesn't override material reality.
If you think that, your grasp on reality is even less tenuous than you usually demonstrate. The arrogance remains though I see.
You can take it to mean exactly what it said.
I find it tiresome going over the same Equality Act stuff a million times on here with you.
The sun will rise tomorrow and we will still all be the sex we were born, including you.
monkers
Legendary Member
Actually it does, and that is the very basis of your complaint. Apologies to @Bromptonaut who is perfectly capable of standing up his own arguments.
After being politely schooled by N for the past couple of days, you think that calling her arrogant is going to be a winner. She is on her way back to her work this morning via chambers in London. You won't hear from her for another two, three or maybe four weeks, so save it.
Yes it has been a long tiresome journey, but the legal professional has brought your nonsense to an end. You found no line of argument that would even remotely challenge her. Diddums, never mind.
AuroraSaab
Squire
Feel free to use your sock puppet whenever you like. The arguments stand on their own merit and despite what you present on here the Equality Act exemptions continue to be used appropriately on a daily basis.
