Transgender people risk being excluded from many public spaces as a result of the recent UK supreme court judgment and must be protected from discrimination, a human rights expert has said.
That's not true - they can use the services aligned to their biological sex.
There is no discrimination.
Remember female is recognised by biology not feelings
I agree, all parties are unhinged
He's literally listed as one of the authors on the actual document, along with trans activist Stephen Whittle. His contribution was such that they gave him extra credit at the end:Not really no. He was merely the rapporteur who drafted the principles based on the output from the Yogyakarta meeting.
And yet you just showed an image confirming him as rapporteur. One of is very important as many people were involved. It's not clear whether he was involved with the second revision.He's literally listed as one of the authors on the actual document, along with trans activist Stephen Whittle. His contribution was such that they gave him extra credit at the end:
when one party is disadvantaged over another.
That would be women being disadvantaged by accepting males into their spaces.
Males can use their alloted spaces, including all those who think they're something else. Fundamentally there are only males and females by biology
He's literally listed as one of the authors on the actual document, along with trans activist Stephen Whittle. His contribution was such that they gave him extra credit at the end:
View attachment 10673
One of the other authors, Professor Robin Wintemute, has since withdrawn his support saying that zero consideration was given to the effect the document might have on women's rights.
Nobody is being excluded from public life. People are simply being asked to not use the services of the other sex in a very few instances where sex matters. When you allow men into women's spaces you risk excluding women.
Lots of waffle for justifying a human rights lawyer wages.There are two separate definitions in use, and sorry to say that you have them confused.
The ability to separate male and female by reproductive capacity form birth is a discrimination - and a sound one if that potential is the only consideration. This would be a legitimate basis for breeders to consider. If viewed through the lens that the 'meaning of life' is solely that potential to breed rather than be concerned with human happiness or whatever, that is legitimate - otherwise it's a fail.
That ties with human intelligence, the ability to discriminate between things by difference, the bee from the wasp, the bicycle from the tricycle etc. So in that way, the midwife discriminates between boys and girls on that basis, but the midwife is not being discriminatory about their treatment in the world - that much is beyond her.
Discrimination under the law is something entirely different and relates to being treated either more or otherwise less favourably within whatever system is being examined.
In effect you've not managed to discriminate between the two definitions of 'discrimination'. The two are commonly conflated in argument to cement an argument as a matter of fact - and that is why the argument is irrational and fails.
Lots of waffle for justifying a human rights lawyer wages.
Emperors new clothes
KISS
You've just outed yourself in the belief that I am in fact a human rights lawyer. Now you have something correct. Well done.
When the Employment Judge asked whether her view would change if the colleague had “fully transitioned,” she didn’t hesitate. “No. You can’t change sex. The fear factor’s still there.”
View: https://x.com/boswelltoday/status/1981396603987452257?t=4bZmgKf8CDAqvj1MKy5dAA&s=19