Gender again. Sorry!

[CXRAndy]

You didn't even get that right.

Bless.

Booo

 

[CXRAndy]

We are not concerned with Irish, Norwegian or any other countries. The UK is where this has happened.

Saying that, I watched a barrister say that many other countries around the world would likely look to the UK and likely use this judgement in deciding their female safe space legislation

 

[monkers]

N here. This needs to stop.

Yesterday I introduced myself to this thread. I offered to answer the legal questions.

Not one person troubled to say 'hello'. Not one person has asked a single question, despite many questions needing to be answered.

Not one person is interested is actually establishing facts or learning a thing.

This is the worst of humanity on display, absolute inflexibility and a determination for open bigotry.

One might say that this is the one thing we can say about the Supreme Court judgment, that this shall be the very model for human behaviour in relation to human rights. This does not pass for adult discourse.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Barbie Kardashian is at a known address. Having served her sentence. Irish law says she is a woman.
And, as you pointed out before they were never in the same prison as each other. Which is what you claimed.
And, by your own count, it's two.

Now in a men's jail/unit because too dangerous for the women's. Was later found not guilty of making threats to kill staff and female prisoners while at the women's jail. Not due for release until 2026.

https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/iri...over-fears-of-attack-on-staff/a659395218.html

These things are easily checkable with google but if you persist on caping for, in this case, a paedophile, a collector of child abuse images, and someone who threatened to rape a woman prisoner with a broomstick handle, I will keep on correcting you.

I don't care if Irish law says a violent man who tried to gouge out his care workers eyes is a woman. He shouldn't be in the women's jail.

 

[AuroraSaab]

There were a small number of trans women housed in a separate wing on the female estate in Limerick. Not only did they not have access from their wing to the rest of the estate, but they were held in solitary isolation for 23 hours per day. So your narrative of them running around rampant in a women's prison is (as usual) a lie.

Because they were too dangerous to be allowed near women. It hardly supports your argument.

The big lie was that Limerick was a women's prison. It had been so; however it was converted. As a side note, I understand that Limerick is an awful environment for prisoners held there.

One prison with separate male and female parts. It is not, and never has been, a mixed sex prison. A women's prison is not improved by the addition of men.

You are a lying c*nt, and you deserve my use of this most ugly and vile word.

You've used language like this throughout the debate. Many transactivists have. It hasn't shut anybody up yet.

I'm going to remind the thread that your troup called Dr Litman 'a shroud waver' for speaking about her trans daughter who took her own life.
I remain absolutely appalled and absolutely disgusted by you saying this on here.

Do you have the receipts for that claim being said on here? I don't recall it and 'shroud waver' doesn't appear when searched for. I certainly haven't said it. I look forward to the evidence that I said it so we can all be as appalled and absolutely disgusted as you are.
Page and post number.

 

[classic33]

Now in a men's jail/unit because too dangerous for the women's. Was later found not guilty of making threats to kill staff and female prisoners while at the women's jail. Not due for release until 2026.

https://m.sundayworld.com/crime/iri...over-fears-of-attack-on-staff/a659395218.html

These things are easily checkable with google but if you persist on caping for, in this case, a paedophile, a collector of child abuse images, and someone who threatened to rape a woman prisoner with a broomstick handle, I will keep on correcting you.

I don't care if Irish law says a violent man who tried to gouge out his care workers eyes is a woman. He shouldn't be in the women's jail.

From October last year
Barbie Kardashian acquitted of threats to kill or cause harm to women at Limerick Prison.

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-la...rture-female-prisoner-as-revenge-court-hears/


And from the older piece ln the Sunday World you linked to
"Kardashian is currently behind bars in a segregated unit at Limerick Prison, sharing a wing with another transgender prisoner and two female child killers, although none of these inmates are permitted to mix."

 

[Xipe Totec]

Interestingly, it appears that there may be wilful misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling, according to former SC judge Lord Sumption:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html

Lord Sumption argued that while many have taken the ruling to mean that service providers are obliged to provide single-sex spaces based on biological sex, the ruling meant that excluding transgender people from single-sex spaces was allowed, and not a breach of the 2010 Equality Act.

He said: “That’s the main point, which I think has been misunderstood about this judgment. I think it’s quite important to note that you are allowed to exclude trans women from these facilities. But you are not obliged to do it...

Lord Sumption was also asked about comments from Baroness Falkner that the ruling meant that trans women could no longer take part in women’s sport, be on single-sex wards and that changing rooms must be based on biological sex.

In response, he said: “No, I don’t think that’s true [...] I don’t think Baroness Falkner is right to say that you can’t have trans women in women’s sport. Simply that, if you decide not to have them, you aren’t breaking the law...”

 

[monkers]

From October last year
Barbie Kardashian acquitted of threats to kill or cause harm to women at Limerick Prison.

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-la...rture-female-prisoner-as-revenge-court-hears/


And from the older piece ln the Sunday World you linked to
"Kardashian is currently behind bars in a segregated unit at Limerick Prison, sharing a wing with another transgender prisoner and two female child killers, although none of these inmates are permitted to mix."

According to sources BK is being considered for a move from Limerick prison. I don't know the details of her case. According to one source she is possibly due for release as early as June this year.

 

[monkers]

N again.

This trans man makes plain his points about the effect of 'bathroom bills' should they be implemented. I recommend listening.

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1EaSncexy9/

 

[CXRAndy]

Companies have to provide single sex provisions. They can if they want provide a third space unisex. If it says women/Female/F shows an image of a woman- that is for females only.

In sport if there is only men and women's competition, then TiMs have to compete in the men's side. It's likely the mens will be called open category. In reality there will be no TiMs competitors because unless they are winning (against women) they won't compete against other males

 

[Xipe Totec]

Companies have to provide single sex provisions. They can if they want provide a third space unisex. If it says women/Female/F shows an image of a woman- that is for females only.

In sport if there is only men and women's competition, then TiMs have to compete in the men's side. It's likely the mens will be called open category. In reality there will be no TiMs competitors because unless they are winning (against women) they won't compete against other males

It would appear - according to the interpretation of somewhat keener legal minds than yours - that you are choosing to believe what the correct terminology defines as utter dogshit. As is your wont.

The new rulings evidently mean that Trans people can be excluded, not that they must. It is optional.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Interestingly, it appears that there may be wilful misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling, according to former SC judge Lord Sumption:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html

If you are offering a facility/competition/service that is stated as women only, it has to be for only women. (Obviously has to meet the proportionate and legitimate aspect to be 'only women' in the first place).

Otherwise you have to call it unisex. If you do call it unisex then, depending on what it is, there might be an issue of indirect discrimination against women.

I think he's wrong on sports like boxing or football. It's clear a Women's Boxing Match would not have to admit men.

 

[CXRAndy]

It would appear - according to the interpretation of somewhat keener legal minds than yours - that you are choosing to believe what the correct terminology defines as utter dogshit. As is your wont.

The new rulings evidently mean that Trans people can be excluded, not that they must. It is optional.

Let's see this play out in the real world after a few legal cases of discrimination against women

 

[Xipe Totec]

Let's see this play out in the real world after a few legal cases of discrimination against women

What, in a court of law, where highly trained & qualified legal professionals - not hysterical, triggered, extreme-right cretins - know exactly what they're talking about?

Yeah. Let's.

 

[monkers]

Companies have to provide single sex provisions. They can if they want provide a third space unisex. If it says women/Female/F shows an image of a woman- that is for females only.

In sport if there is only men and women's competition, then TiMs have to compete in the men's side. It's likely the mens will be called open category. In reality there will be no TiMs competitors because unless they are winning (against women) they won't compete against other males

N here.

Allow me to tidy this for you. The Supreme Court ruling takes effect only on the interpretation of the Equality Act, and then only in regard to sex.

The Workplace Regulations do require single sex provisions, but only as appropriate to the needs of the company. Therefore there is no requirement for facilities for showering unless the work is such that showering is a requirement, for example.

It is also true, although you haven't mentioned it, that there are new regulations around the kinds of facilities that must be incorporated into new company buildings, or where major refits to sanitary installations are carried out.

However there is a crucial detail that you are missing from your understanding. The Workplace Regulation are not within the competence of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Instead they fall within the competence of the Health and Safety Executive, who are not required to follow the missives of Baroness Falkner.