Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

I'm using your style here, search your own posts and you'll see where you've been foul mouthed and arrogant in your replies.

That's a no on the receipts then, as usual.

And surprise, the official attached to the Cabinet Office in 2010 who helped the draft the Bill has been published in The Guardian this evening.

She didn't help draft the bill. She was a civil servant, a policy officer. Legislation is drafted by specialist lawyers called Parlaimentary Counsel on the instructions of Bill team solicitors and she's really not even in a position to say what parliament meant when it passed the bill, only what she thought it meant. If she was that sure that's what parliament wanted she should have pressed for it to be expressed more explicitly before passing.

Trevor Phillips had a hand in it and he disagrees with her. 'The whole point of the Equality Act was to give trans people rights as trans people'.

View: https://x.com/DailyTPodcast/status/1912886976534937656



Her opinions as a former civil servant are now irrelevant, because the court gets to interpret the legislation not individuals, either then or now.

You were happy enough to insist we all had to follow the law when you were following the Stonewall interpretation but now the court has clarified it you seem less enthusiastic.

You've been telling me over and over what the law is and how it must be followed. Well you were wrong as the court have made clear.
So now I expect you to follow the law.

And here you are telling us what the court will say:

You were wrong.

 

[monkers]

Melanie Field

Independent Adviser on Equality and Human Rights Independent Adviser on Equality and Human Rights


Well, it’s been a long and difficult day. It’s going to take me a while to process the full practical implications of today’s Supreme Court judgment.

Having led the development and passage of the Equality Act 2010 (EA), I know that the policy and legal instructions underlying its drafting were based on the clear premise that, for a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), their “sex” for the purposes of the EA is that recorded on their GRC.

This position, as it relates to sex discrimination law, was set out clearly in the explanatory notes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (GRA) - the Equality Act did not seek or purport to change that approach. The exceptions in the Equality Act, for example to protect single-sex services and competitive sport, and to enable occupational requirements to be imposed, were drafted on this basis.

Therefore there are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by Parliament. We all need to understand what this change means for how the law provides for the appropriate treatment of natal and trans women and men in a whole range of contexts.

The inclusion of the word “woman” in the pregnancy and maternity provisions was contentious – we were well aware of the possibility of a trans man with a GRC becoming pregnant. The drafting was eventually determined for political reasons, and reluctantly implemented by officials on the basis that the purposive approach to statutory interpretation, together with the explicit provision in the GRA that a GRC does not affect parenthood, would give the right result should a case ever be brought by a trans man in this situation.

However, it is true that this undermines the coherence of the drafting and I fear that this anomaly played a significant role in the approach taken by the Court. This highlights the danger of allowing politics to influence legislative drafting – something we should continue to guard against as the implications of this judgment are worked through and any amendments to ensure the law works as it should are contemplated.

The Supreme Court highlighted the difficulty of catering for two “sub-categories” of trans people – those with GRCs and those without.

It was of course the purpose of the GRA to create this difference and the Equality Act was drafted to operate in that context. However you define sex, and however you categorise trans people, the Act needs to ensure everyone is treated appropriately and protected from discrimination.

It needs to work in a whole range of situations, where individuals identify and present in different ways. We need to understand how this judgment affects rights and responsibilities in all possible scenarios.

As we all get to grips with what today’s decision means, it is reassuring that the Court emphasised that “This interpretation of the EA 2010 does not remove protection from trans people, with or without a GRC”.

 

[CXRAndy]

First. Stop worrying and getting up in the middle of the night to post👍

Women really don't care about any of that

Their safe spaces (toilets/changing rooms) will be made safe, women will demand women for intimate examinations, sports will be returned to female only, language will describe women correctly


The rest I very much doubt they're interested in.

They will leave those with their ******* fetishes to continue on-as one trans activists eloquently put it on a debate whilst discussing the Supreme court judgement

Have a nice day when you wake up or if you haven't managed to get some sleep, because of the fantastic victory women have had over trans ideology

 

[CXRAndy]

I've had no part in trans activism. The allegation, and a galloping lie is that I've had any involvement in trans activism.

What some trans activists have done is not in my name. So this is whataboutery on stilts and steroids.

My involvement has been on here to expose the lies being told, most often without giving opinion, but quoting the solid legal opinion of others.

The law was readily waived away with a dismissive hand as being irrelevant to their interest, until the Supreme Court ruling of course, then the champagne corks flew didn't they.

There's been plenty of trans hatred on display, and some of that came from you. You didn't care enough to consider what some women were telling you; you were happy to belittle and insult. Trans hate was never a feminist endeavour. Feminism has crossed the floor, it is no longer of the left, it shares its values with fascism. And you are there for it.

And why wouldn't I call you a c*nt? It wouldn't be misplaced.

You chose to attempt to belittle and insult a person with a long history of advocating for human rights for all. That used to be a feminist endeavour.

The Supreme Court ruling won't stand for long, it is ill-founded and most probably because of the collusion of those involved with trans hatred that extends all the way up to members of the present government.

How stupid they and all of you will look when the European Court tears it down; and they will.

We'll see

I understand from reports there is very little chance this will be taken up

In the meantime the trans ideology has died, we should celebrate it's short lived life

 

[CXRAndy]

Only one


View: https://x.com/afneil/status/1913261140311679099?t=M2-Ars-QL6Mu50J19_A1yw&s=19


👌

 

[Stevo 666]

Melanie Field who was the lead writer has spoken out. The writing team were given a clear brief, that trans people with a GRC were to be protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex. Woman means both biological woman and trans woman with a GRC under the Equality Act.

People who were right.

The staff who called out Falkner for her transphobic behaviour at meetings.

The Commission staff members who made formal complaints about Falkner.

The Commission staff members who left the commission en masse.

The staff members who raised concerned in the Equality office about Truss and Badenoch.

The Scottish Ministers.

The Judges of the Outer and Inner Courts of Session, who ridiculed Falkner for her absurd claims, such as there being a legal definition of 'lesbian' - there isn't.

Liberty International.

Stonewall.

Transactivists funnily enough.

A few good folk on this forum.

My niece.

Me.

And those who got it wrong.

FWS

Sex Matters

JK farkwit Rowling

LGB Alliance

Some actual twats on here.

The Supreme Court - how much egg on their faces tonight?

Fortunately you are not the arbiter of who is right and wrong. And in any event it doesn't change the Supreme Court decision.

 

[Stevo 666]

I don't think blocking people is a bitch move but I understand why it happens. Equally I don't think asking people to ignore the content of others is all that helpful either (albeit not in this part of the forum but elsewhere).

I dunno, this thread is weird and veers from the interesting to the tedious quite a lot. As far as I know I'm the only active member here who blurs the lines gender wise (in my head, blah blah I don't exist etc) and I know I've said some sh!tty things on here but f*cking hell y'all, we're all humans, be nice if we could just respect each other eh?

Respect is earned.

And if people show some respect they'll usually get some back. But for me at least if they start by name calling, making patronising comments, assuming the moral high ground or just generally being a twat, then they'll get it back with a bit of top spin on. And get the piss taken where needed. Blocking other posters because they don't agree with their views puts them into this category as far as I'm concerned.

 

[AndyRM]

Respect is earned.

And if people show some respect they'll usually get some back. But for me at least if they start by name calling, making patronising comments, assuming the moral high ground or just generally being a twat, then they'll get it back with a bit of top spin on. And get the piss taken where needed. Blocking other posters because they don't agree with their views puts them into this category as far as I'm concerned.

I don't disagree.

But there's a reason things are the way they are on this thread.

 

[CXRAndy]

It was recently start by Briantrumpey. He joined from the now dead BR forum, wonder why? Then started he puts everyone on ignore - basically anything he doesn't agree with.

I'm not bothered if folk do or don't block, funny how like sheep quite a few just followed him 🤣

 

[Stevo 666]

I don't disagree.

But there's a reason things are the way they are on this thread.

Which is?

 

[AndyRM]

Which is?

Entrenched views with a refusal to accept this is a very grey area on either side.

 

[Stevo 666]

It was recently start by Briantrumpey. He joined from the now dead BR forum, wonder why? Then started he puts everyone on ignore - basically anything he doesn't agree with.

I'm not bothered if folk do or don't block, funny how like sheep quite a few just followed him 🤣

I joined from BR as well BTW.

Didn't know that he had blocked people. He's not too bad but has rather entrenched views on Brexit, the Tories and Trump and bangs on incessantly about them. Also seemed to try and take some sort of unofficial 'school prefect' role on here and when he tried to lecture me on what was acceptable humour I told him to go do one. So I might be ignored as well now 🙂

 

[CXRAndy]

Welcome by the way. 🤣

I have what some might call traditional views on men and women. Rest I just have fun 😁

 

[Stevo 666]

Entrenched views with a refusal to accept this is a very grey area on either side.

OK, but still doesn't justify the personal abuse and rants etc. Not that I'm too bothered, I can give as good as I get if needed.

 

[Stevo 666]

Welcome by the way. 🤣

I have what some might call traditional views on men and women. Rest I just have fun 😁

Thanks - I was certainly given a warm welcome by some a few weeks ago But sticks n stones etc. And this being non-moderated political forum with plenty of the usual characters I'm like a pig in sh1t 😁