Gender again. Sorry!

[spen666]

The model is of bodily autonomy and consent. That's the standard for cis people and the standard for trans people.

Some people study their internalised beliefs and traits more than others. There is no fixed and acceptable narrative around being trans - we are just all more different to you, just as other cis people are different to you. A child with Down's syndrome is different to me and to you, but their life is just as valid.

Nature never built us to be that same, never intends us to look the same, believe the same, or conduct ourselves the same.

People do not have to constrain or frame their existence to imitate you. How sure are you that nature says you are the perfect specimen that the rest of humanity must model themselves on?

Just leave people be.

What like letting biological women use toilets designed for them without allowing non biological women in them.
Why these women seem to be excluded from your desire to let these (biological women) people be is difficult to reconcile.

 

[CXRAndy]

There does not exist a trans child or baby, just mentally ill adults who put sick ideas into vulnerable kids

 

[monkers]

Old news since it was the middle of last week.

Not absorbed the detail but I think GLP's standing was an issue.

Indeed. School level errors made in both Sex Matters v City of London, and GLP v EHRC.

Nutshell version -

Sex Matters (sole complainant) have standing as a charity but not an individual with a detriment. High Court is not a court of first instance.

GLP v EHRC (GLP as primary complainant) - repeat and rinse. Other complainants have standing, but High Court is not a court of first instance. Judge had previously delayed saying he can't listen to a case where the target is moving. Last week examined a withdrawn version of guidance (I can't understand why he'd bother). Otherwise made a mash up of Workplace regs (provision) and EqA (access) saying that the standing for access was in the the WPR and the SC ruling compels reading of access in the EqA as bio. No proper consideration of GRA deeming provision. Also rejects Article 8 implications from Goodwyn because people tittle tattle all the time and trans people just to get over it.

So neither case went well for complainants.

 

[spen666]

So neither case went well for complainants.

Or put simply without the waffle and word salad


The respective complainants lost

 

[AuroraSaab]

There is no fixed and acceptable narrative around being trans - we are just all more different to you, just as other cis people are different to you. A child with Down's syndrome is different to me and to you, but their life is just as valid.

This is the usual trans hyperbole. Everybody's life is valid. Women's lives are valid for example.

Nature never built us to be all the same, never intended us to all look the same, to believe the same, or to conduct ourselves the same.

Nature is nature. It's not a sentient entity with a conscious decision making direction. It doesn't intend anything.

People do not have to constrain or frame their existence to imitate you. How sure are you that nature says you are the perfect specimen that the rest of humanity must model themselves on?

Just leave people be.

I'm 100% sure Nature has no opinion.

Nobody much cares about your internal beliefs. They are the same as any metaphysical beliefs, whether it's astrology or religion. Society makes some accommodation for them but it's unreasonable to expect people to roll over and give you what you want when those beliefs impinge on other people. You could leave women be.