Gender again. Sorry!

[AuroraSaab]

It deserved more thorough discussion than it received in Parliament - 46 minutes yesterday apparently. Potential prosecution isn't the only moral issue here.

I'm concerned that women might now be coerced into very late abortions because the baby isn't the desired sex or other reasons, or even that the UK might become a destination for those who cannot secure late abortions in their own country. What's to stop a partner getting abortion pills from the internet and coercing a partner to take them, or even just putting them in her food?

If there's no issue with late term termination, why can doctors not be involved without prosecution? It seems a curious double standard in health care to leave women to end up delivering a dead almost full term baby on their bathroom floor because they know no medic will help.

I would have liked to have seen more thorough discussion on the topic. It should have been possible to look at ways of ending the prosecution of women who have procured late stage abortion without in effect making abortion up to birth legal.

 

[Bazzer]

N here.

Just to let you know monkers passed last week.

N, sorry to hear that. I largely enjoyed her contributions and perspective.

 

[monkers]

N, sorry to hear that. I largely enjoyed her contributions and perspective.

Thank you Bazzer - greatly appreciated. xx

 

[The Crofted Crest]

Sad news, N.

 

[monkers]

Sad news, N.

Yes indeed. Thank you. xx

It wasn't unexpected. Eighteen months ago we were told three to four months.

 

[CXRAndy]

So you want rules to stop something that doesn't happen and likely wouldn't happen from happening. Sounds entirely sensible.

It's a safeguarding step, so the medical profession have genuine medical reasons to terminate after 20 weeks. A third party would almosr guarantee no underhand behaviour.

Likely wouldn't, but could. Criminal sanction would sharpen the behaviour

 

[CXRAndy]

It deserved more thorough discussion than it received in Parliament - 46 minutes yesterday apparently. Potential prosecution isn't the only moral issue here.

I'm concerned that women might now be coerced into very late abortions because the baby isn't the desired sex or other reasons, or even that the UK might become a destination for those who cannot secure late abortions in their own country. What's to stop a partner getting abortion pills from the internet and coercing a partner to take them, or even just putting them in her food?

If there's no issue with late term termination, why can doctors not be involved without prosecution? It seems a curious double standard in health care to leave women to end up delivering a dead almost full term baby on their bathroom floor because they know no medic will help.

I would have liked to have seen more thorough discussion on the topic. It should have been possible to look at ways of ending the prosecution of women who have procured late stage abortion without in effect making abortion up to birth legal.

There will always be a small number with reasons you mention. That's why I said medical, not religious, cultural. Those are not valid reasons in my opinion. Criminal prosecution would certainly keep almost all the medical profession in check

 

[CXRAndy]

Sex Matters have written to the Scottish government giving them 14 days to implement the Supreme court judgment on single sex spaces for public bodies

I presume then if no response or compliance, legal process will begin

 

[AuroraSaab]

It's a straightforward ruling. The procrastination is due to wanting to pacify certain parties. If the Scottish government hadn't pushed ahead with things like mixed sex school toilets in the first place they wouldn't be faced with trying to undo it.

 

[monkers]

It's a straightforward ruling. The procrastination is due to wanting to pacify certain parties. If the Scottish government hadn't pushed ahead with things like mixed sex school toilets in the first place they wouldn't be faced with trying to undo it.

According to searches, there were no trans women who ever applied for roles on public boards in Scotland under gender quotas. Similarly, none have been shoe-horned in. Accordingly no trans women were removed from Scottish public boards, because there never were any to remove.

Had that been the case, there would room for argument that urgent action was required. As things stand, there is room to say that matters remain in the air until lawyers have competed their work.

Setting the question to ChatGPT elicited the following response:-

Because the case wasn't really about public boards anymore. It became a proxy battle over the legal recognition of gender identity—one that now has implications far beyond quotas, including:

• Single-sex spaces
• Employment law
• Data collection
• Future equality policies

---

In Summary​

Yes, three court cases were pursued to exclude a group of people from a right they seemingly had not exercised. For supporters, it was about legal clarity. For critics, it was an unnecessary legal siege on an already marginalised group. And for Scotland’s public boards? Nothing changed—except who counts.

Sex Matters did not bring the case in the first place. In other words the proxy battle approach having been successful in April is now being used again in order to hurry up the rush to remove the other existing rights of trans people.

Two further points of interest:-
Baroness Falkner, in reply to a question at the parliamentary select committee, said as much as she does not believe that the fundamental right to privacy applies to trans people. This is an obvious contradiction with agreed law.

Since that committee, and with reflection of what she blurted out, Falkner has hastily retreated from the position. She now says the the interim guidance is wrong and that trans people with a GRC can not be prevented from using workplace toilets appropriate to their needs. This was a point predicted by monkers earlier using the correct legal reasoning.

 

[Psamathe]

For Info:

EHRC backs down on single-sex toilets
... But its pre-action response to Good Law Project concedes that what it meant to say was that “where separate facilities are lawfully provided for ‘men’ and ‘women’, this means for biological men and women [our emphasis]” and that where a toilet “is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside” the employer will satisfy its obligations.

In other words, an employer does not need to provide single-sex toilets.
...

Ian

 

[CXRAndy]

Where unisex communal toilets/changing rooms are the only option, then changes will have to be made

 

[monkers]

Where unisex communal toilets/changing rooms are the only option, then changes will have to be made

I will just gently say, that I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

 

[classic33]

N here.

Just to let you know monkers passed last week.

CXRAndy - legal point - the abortion limit is 24 weeks not 20 as you stated.

Final point re: monkers on Twitter. Monkers never had a Twitter account. Years ago she had a small spat with a Green Party activist. As an act of spite, the father of that person opened a Twitter account in her name and used her image. He made a number of Tweets which produced a bit of Twitter storm. Later this man was sentenced to a very long prison sentence on unrelated very serious sexual offences.

Sorry to read that, but thanks for letting us know.

Hope it was as pain free, and as quick as possible.

 

[AuroraSaab]

For Info:

Ian

That is simply not true. This is the EHRC response. (Maugham's other claim wasn't directed at them). They haven't changed any public advice or backed down.

The EHRC has simply confirmed that employers/services can provide mixed sex use, fully enclosed toilet cubicles if they wish. If they don't make all their facilities fully enclosed single occupancy, they must provide single sex toilets.

New build Tim Horton's cafes have this arrangement. Single use cubicles, no communal areas. It's legal and always was.

Maughan has to look like he's doing something for the £400k he's raised from the gullible I suppose.