Gender again. Sorry!

[Bromptonaut]

The person sitting next to me on the sofa is saying the following.

When the EHRC issues guidelines, they are not legally binding and have no force. If it was the case that the EHRC has the legal competence to write guidelines that are legally binding, then this guidance would still not be since they would not be underpinning anything currently in the law. This is true because nothing in law states that only 'biological men' can use toilets with male denoting signage, and likewise that only 'biological women' can use toilets with female denoting signage.

The EHRC do not have the legal power to provide guidance on workplace toilets as they come under the perview of the Health & Safety Executive.

This guidance has the very real potential of causing service providers and employers of breaking law, which for employers has potential to lead to criminal proceedings.

If the government had 'cojones' it would legislate so that the GRA and Equality legislation had the meaning we thought before the Supreme Court put a stick in the spokes.

Not holding my breath.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Apologies for the assumption.

Thanks.

 

[monkers]

If the government had 'cojones' it would legislate so that the GRA and Equality legislation had the meaning we thought before the Supreme Court put a stick in the spokes.

Not holding my breath.

N has refused to say that the Supreme Court has made the incorrect decision. However I'm free to give my own opinion.

The job of the Supreme Court was to decide what Parliament intended. There is documented evidence on-line that I have been guided to by one in the know. There was an exchange in the drafting committee notes between Dr Harris MP (lib dem) and the then Solicitor General Vera Baird. The SG makes her point very clearly that the EqA must respect the GRA in that principle that trans people acquire the full rights of the acquired gender. This account is supported by Melanie Field who was the lead drafting officer.

The SC seem to have followed an academic argument about best practice for drafting law. That is to say that the law is made clear if definitions are consistent not just with in a section of an Act but throughout an Act, and that generally once defined they have one meaning and not one that can be variable by context.

However, again as I understand it, the drafting of the EqA could not be made on that basis, since it was designed to support the principle of intersectionality, and therefore to allow the principle of dual discrimination.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

We're getting in a mess now.

How to sort it out?

If the government had 'cojones' it would legislate so that the GRA and Equality legislation had the meaning we thought before the Supreme Court put a stick in the spokes.

Oh, l see let's just get back to forcing women to make way. @brompton's usual nice to be nice misogyny.
Anyhow, good to see we're back to reducing it all to toilets.

By the way I do agree it's a mess. But it was also a mess before the recent ruling.

 

[monkers]

How to sort it out?

Oh, l see let's just get back to forcing women to make way. @brompton's usual nice to be nice misogyny.
Anyhow, good to see we're back to reducing it all to toilets.

By the way I do agree it's a mess. But it was also a mess before the recent ruling.

Gender critical people celebrated the Supreme Court ruling.

They have achieved exactly what Aurora has been demanding. After the event the penny has dropped. They've made women less safe. Women now do not have a document that proves their legal sex, they now must subject themselves to invasive testing to prove their sex when challenged.

On the other hand any man with malice aforethought can arrive in a woman's space with his birth certificate, claim that he is a trans man with a GRC and has a good chance of being admitted because that is now the law and the guidance.

Women perceived as having a masculine appearance - maybe they are tall - can be excluded on looks alone, that is now in the EHRC guidance. The excluded women can however use a gender neutral facility if it is available, otherwise they are expected to start campaigning for third spaces for them to use.

In the workplace, those trans women who had being living with dignity for years with colleagues unaware of their trans history will be told by HR that they must now use men's toilets. Again this is a move from no harm to harm.

Gender critical women have made women less safe. It's not as if nobody told them is it?

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Gender critical people celebrated the Supreme Court ruling. They have achieved exactly what Aurora has been demanding. After the event the penny has dropped. They've made women less safe. Women now do not have a document that proves their legal sex, they now must subject themselves to invasive testing to prove their sex.

On the other hand any man with malice aforethought can arrive in a woman's space with his birth certificate, claim that he is a trans man with a GRC and be admitted because that is now the law and the guidance. Women perceived as having a masculine appearance - maybe they are tall - can be excluded on looks alone, that is now in the guidance. The excluded women can however use a gender neutral facility if it is available, otherwise they are expected to start campaigning for third spaces for them to use.

Gender critical women have made women less safe. It's not as if nobody told them is it?

Like I said, it's a mess. Although I think the above is more than a bit hyperbolic.

 

[monkers]

Like I said, it's a mess. Although I think the above is more than a bit hyperbolic.

It isn't; it's already happening.

 

[CXRAndy]

No it's not like that,










Only ugly butch women aren't allowed in women's facilities anymore

It's to encourage, do better with your appearance 😁

 

[AuroraSaab]

Why don't you do that, then you'll be able to use the 4th space set aside, not the 3rd.

??

But you keep saying sex is binary, so how can it require third spaces?

Sex is binary. The third space is for people who are uncomfortable using the facilities or services of their birth sex.

Just let anyone in who looks like they might be a trans man, after all we can always tell if their chromosomes are XX or XY can't we?

Hang on. Before the judgement the demand was that any man could use women's spaces (regardless of looks) if he said he was a woman, but that women shouldn't be alarmed by this because men wouldn't pretend to be something they weren't for nefarious reasons.

Now all of a sudden men are going to be pretending to be transmen to get into women's spaces?

Before the Supreme Court you thought Karen White's GRC got him in every woman's space, and you still think it should. The difference now is that women can ask for him to be removed. And you don't like that.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

No it's not like that,










Only ugly butch women aren't allowed in women's facilities anymore

It's to encourage, do better with your appearance 😁

Seems he's getting bored with being merely a racist f*ckwit.

 

[monkers]

Sex is binary. The third space is for people who are uncomfortable using the facilities or services of their birth sex.

Where is the legal requirement that they should? On the other hand, to quote the Gender Recognition Act 2004, ''for all purposes''.

You've previously stated that there is no law, but there is ''convention''. I've been using the term ''convention rights'' frequently enough. Convention rights are the fundamental rights brought into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Are we there yet?

 

[AuroraSaab]

In my mind a trans identifying woman is my colleague Barry now Heather.

Your colleague is a trans identifying man. Or transwoman, if that's what you want to use.

Or is it my staff trainer who appears male but was born female?

She's female. If she identifies as male she's a trans identifying woman. Or transman, if that's what you want to use.

I seriously doubt you'd have a clue of the latter's history; I only do 'cos I met them while in transition.

Your perception is not necessarily what others see.

 

[monkers]

Seems he's getting bored with being merely a racist f*ckwit.

This was widely predicted as a consequence in arguments made by the trans community and by cis women, especially by black cis women.

These stereotypes are created by those men who think that women should fit with their expectations of what women should look like.

On the policing of toilets​

Any change in the law would affect everyone, not just trans people. What about women who have facial hair due to polycystic ovary syndrome? What about women who don’t conform to stereotypes of what a woman “should” look like? These stereotypes, by the way, often have racist undertones. They’re stereotypes of what a white “woman” should look like. Lots of women already experience issues from other women when they use the toilets, but a change in the law could see them being excluded from public toilets along with trans people.

https://metro.co.uk/2025/05/27/a-stranger-questioned-gender-im-a-biological-woman-23258488/

 

[AuroraSaab]

Gender critical people celebrated the Supreme Court ruling. They have achieved exactly what Aurora has been demanding. After the event the penny has dropped. They've made women less safe. Women now do not have a document that proves their legal sex, they now must subject themselves to invasive testing to prove their sex when challenged.

How were they safe before? No man in women's spaces or services could be challenged. He just had to say 'I'm a woman'.

On the other hand any man with malice aforethought can arrive in a woman's space with his birth certificate, claim that he is a trans man with a GRC and has a good chance of being admitted because that is now the law and the guidance.

No. Service providers can deny access. But again, you told us men don't go to the trouble of pretending in order to get in women's spaces but now the changing rooms will be flooded with men claiming to be transmen just for kicks?

Women perceived as having a masculine appearance - maybe they are tall - can be excluded on looks alone, that is now in the EHRC guidance.

Whereas before no man could be excluded, even if they had a completely male appearance...

In the workplace, those trans women who had being living with dignity for years with colleagues unaware of their trans history will be told by HR that they must now use men's toilets. Again this is a move from no harm to harm.

Perhaps it harmed women that a trans identifying man was using the female facilities. But I guess their feelings don't count, only his.

Gender critical women have made women less safe. It's not as if nobody told them is it?

No. Women are safer now.

 

[monkers]

No. Women are safer now.

The evidence is to the contrary.

1 When asked for evidence that trans women with a GRC were assaulting women in women's toilets, you couldn't produce it.

2 Already women are reporting being aggressively challenged by the Karens in women's spaces.

3 You talked about trans women as 'men with certificates', and that 'men with female birth certificates were a 'legal fiction' or 'legal absurdity'. Now any man carrying his birth certificate is a 'certificated man' and has access to women's spaces if he says, ''I'm a trans man''.

4 A woman's birth certificate can now be dismissed as ''one of those amended birth certificates''.

5 Women can be judged by perception under Faulkner's new rules and asked to leave.

6 When you change a system with a 20 year old history with no evidence of harm to a system that lets in ''men with a certificate'', ie their birth certificate, they no longer have to look like a woman; they have to look like a man, there is by default potential for greater harm - that's how risk assessment works.

7 Maybe this is what CX Randy wanted all along, access to women's spaces where only the delicate feminine straight pretty ones are allowed.