Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
monkers
Squire
That thought is instructive. From the above you accept that the law does not barr trans women with a GRC from entering female single sex facilities. You are correct to say this much - rather the reverse is true, statute confers it as an inalienable human right, but legally constrained by the permitted exceptions.
monkers
Squire
Ah you see, most people dont see a TiM with a piece of paper a female.
They are a trans identifying male
The statute isn't some perceived version of ''most people'' - it is the sovereign rights of all people. You think your opinion is ''king''. This is a delusion.
You are free to have an opinion that ''the law is an ass'' and free to express it. However your opinion does not usurp the sovereignty of parliament.
When parliament placed a deeming provision in the GRA the law became such that trans women with a GRC are to be treated as women, and trans men are to be treated as men. The application did not apply solely to the GRA but to all legislation subsequent to it, unless that legislation expressly disapplies it. No such expressly stated disapplication is found in the EqA or the Same Sex Marriage Act.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Shaman
Here we go again. As usual, your knowledge of the law is superior to that of the lawyers of GB Weightlifting as well as the supreme court.
GB Weightlifting aren't expressing an opinion and I haven't quoted them as having status as a legal authority. They are an example of an organisation whose lawyers have looked at the clarification of the Equality Act from the supreme court and are officially bringing their own regulations into line.
(Edited for clarity)
Last edited:
monkers
Squire
Just as Greta Thunberg pleas that people ''listen to the scientists'', I invite you not to listen to me, but to read the statute. I assist you most often by both citing it and linking you to authoritative text directly from the act, and where this is disputed as not what parliament intended, I have taken you to agreements made by the drafting committee. In so doing, I am not offering you my legal opinion, I'm exhibiting the facts. This is the ordinary procedure of lawyers.
Opinions can vary on the interpretation of the words in either place as ''intent''. I've provided you the opportunity to examine those words and engage with me on how those words might convey a different meaning. Accordingly I suggest you go back to Qs 74 through to 77 and dispute the meanings of the words of the then Solicitor General Vera Baird (now Dame Vera Baird).
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Shaman
You're quoting comments made by 2 people at the committee stage in 2009 as having authoritative legal precedent over a supreme court ruling. It's laughable.
monkers
Squire
In the UK’s constitutional framework, Parliament is sovereign. That means:
- 🏛️ Parliament can make or repeal any law it chooses. No court can override an Act of Parliament or declare it invalid.
- ⚖️ The judiciary must interpret and apply legislation as enacted by Parliament, not substitute their own view of what the law should be.
- 📜 If judicial interpretation appears to depart from Parliament’s intent, Parliament can respond by amending the legislation—sovereignty includes correction.
The ambiguity lies not in the original legislative intent, but in how that intent has been reframed by the complainants in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers and ultimately reinterpreted by the Supreme Court.
🧭 Drafting Committee’s Intent (2009–2010)
- Led by Solicitor General Vera Baird, the committee made clear that a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is to be treated “as a woman for all purposes”, including under the protected characteristic of sex.
- This interpretation relied on the deeming provision in Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which states that a person’s acquired gender becomes their legal gender “for all purposes.”
- The Equality Act 2010 was drafted to harmonise with the GRA, ensuring that trans individuals with a GRC would be protected under both gender reassignment and sex.
⚖️ Complainants’ Understanding (FWS, 2025)
- For Women Scotland (FWS) argued that the term “woman” in the Equality Act refers exclusively to biological sex, not legal sex acquired via a GRC2.
- Their position was that including trans women in the definition of “woman” would undermine sex-based rights, particularly in contexts like single-sex services, healthcare, and representation on public boards3.
- The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that “sex” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, and that the GRA’s deeming provision does not override this interpretation4.
⚠️ The Ambiguity
- The drafting committee’s intent was to create a seamless legal framework where a GRC confers recognition under the protected characteristic of sex.
- The complainants and the Court treated the Equality Act as internally inconsistent with that framework, arguing that certain provisions (e.g. pregnancy, single-sex services) necessitate a biological definition of sex.
- This creates a doctrinal rupture: the Equality Act was designed to be inclusive of legal sex, but is now applied in a way that excludes trans women from sex-based protections, despite their legal status.
🟦 Legislative Drift (n.) The slow migration of a law’s meaning away from its original purpose, often led by judicial reinterpretation dressed as clarification. Symptoms include parliamentary déjà vu and rights lost in translation.
Last edited:
monkers
Squire
In other words Aurora, your failure in this ''discussion'' is one of refusing to engage with the ideas. Instead your approach has been use strategies to avoid those truths, replace those truths with prepared falsehoods, invoke outliers, claiming the moral high ground, representing a majority view, and combined all of that with an intent of attrition of any people you deem to be opponents of your absolutism. You've engaged strategies of instant dismal without any consideration, smearing the opponent, veiled threats of pretended knowledge, using private messaging to spread this pretended knowledge to the tag team, and even pretending that the opponent is not a lifeform. All very desperate stuff.
And that is my summary of this thread and the parallel ''what is woman'' thread and dressed up as polite and informed content.
While monkers finally resorted to using a word that she personally hated, she was letting you know by full strength what she felt after a long culmination of the most horrid treatment, which by any standard was abuse that continued to her final days. Once driven to that outburst, you weaponised it, and continue to weaponise it post-mortem.
It's like David Cameron walking round with that note left by Liam Byrne in the desk at the treasury, strutting around as if that was gold, when the truth was he (Liam Byrne) was continuing a tradition that was ''their little joke'' - ''Sorry old cock, there's no money left'' Yes very drole I'm sure, and about as funny as you.
Last edited:
monkers
Squire
I hardly disagree. Yes in everyman use ''funny that'!''
monkers
Squire
There you go again. A perfect demonstration of a person clearly with no ability to make a point in discussion or argument. Instead reliance on false equivalence to portray me as predator. You really are quite sick Andy.
Last edited:
