Ianonabike
Esquire
When the very bedrock of an ideology (in this case, that men can be women) is a joke meant to be taken seriously, howlers are sure to follow.
Gender again. Sorry!
- Thread starter theclaud
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
That's what the EA says exclusion should be. 'Legitimate aim' obviously. Whether service providers accommodations are indirect discrimination under the EA may well end up being tested in court if individual providers decide they are not going to make use of the EA exemptions.
Yes, there are certain situations where only exclusion of certain people guarantees fairness, safety, privacy, or dignity, for others.
I'm not allowed in the under 5's ball pool at IKEA. It's detrimental to me but more detrimental to the toddlers I would be landing on. The scales of justice have not been unbalanced by my exclusion.
classic33
Missen
More likely you're not allowed into the under 5's ball pool due to safety concerns for you, not the under 5's. There's a safe weight on the balls used in those ball pools, and you're over it.
Even the ones supplied to such places as IKEA, are sold with a tested, safe to use weight limit.
The next time you're in a shop that sells those balls, read the small print on the packaging. If it's not visible, ask a member of staff what the safe weight is. They don't know, or are unable to find out, leave well alone.
monkers
Shaman
Where in statute or legal precedent does it say that view is permissible?
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
Pretty sure it's so adults don't crush the little kids not so they don't crush the balls.
It doesn't need to be said in the law. When there are objective justifications or legitimate aims, service providers can use the exceptions, which will inevitably include full exclusion of other groups in some circumstances.
This is a pointless discussion though. You don't think there are any legitimate circumstances in which men like you should be excluded from women's spaces, so there can never be a proportionate means of achieving that exclusion. You reject all compromises. It's full and complete access you seek, nothing else will do.
It doesn't need to be said in the law. When there are objective justifications or legitimate aims, service providers can use the exceptions, which will inevitably include full exclusion of other groups in some circumstances.
This is a pointless discussion though. You don't think there are any legitimate circumstances in which men like you should be excluded from women's spaces, so there can never be a proportionate means of achieving that exclusion. You reject all compromises. It's full and complete access you seek, nothing else will do.
monkers
Shaman
I'll take this as a reply to me.
I'm trying to be quite gentle with you and lead you to a better understanding. I would like you to consider that if you can not find places in statute or legal precedent that performs some level of proof of your claim, that is reasonable to say that your claim does not exist in law.
So you are quite right, it does remain a pointless discussion due to the grounds you are arguing from. The presumption must be that your claim is either wrong in law, or that you don't know the law sufficiently to find that determination as a matter of fact. Perhaps you can enlighten further, so that progress can be made?
Last edited:
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
This is the stupidity of trans ideology in the eyes of the law in many parts of the world where this craziness exists
View: https://x.com/i/status/2002383486238269731
View: https://x.com/i/status/2002383486238269731
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
You've spent years on here calling me and others c#nts and d#ckheads so spare us the pretence of patronising politeness. It only lasts until you have another public meltdown then we're all called c#nts again. I'm not engaging with your fake lawyer persona, Monica.
Maybe you should stand for parliament, not lose your deposit, and change the law.
Maybe you should stand for parliament, not lose your deposit, and change the law.
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
You've spent years on here calling me and others c#nts and d#ckheads so spare us the pretence of patronising politeness. It only lasts until you have another public meltdown then we're all called c#nts again. I'm not engaging with your fake lawyer persona, Monica.
Maybe you should stand for parliament, not lose your deposit, and change the law that you don't like.
monkers
Shaman
This is a false claim and one that you produce whenever you need to apply a brake to a test of your arguments.
You also wheel out the claim that I am patronising or pompous as soon as you become aware that you are floundering.
You either have the legal knowledge to back up your claim or you do not. Now that you refuse to play the ball, it has become clear that you can not produce the required answer.
It now falls to me to be less gentle and demonstrate to the forum, that you have little understanding of the law in statute, function, or operation.
To be clear I can not fully agree with the words of Lord Hodge when he says the parliament did not intend that trans people with a GRC to be covered under the protected ground of sex - there exists contemporaneous evidence from the development of law since 1999 that it was the case. In my opinion Lord Hodge should have been a little more careful to say that they did not find from statutory reading of the Equality Act alone, that parliament had fully intended that the definition of sex leaned on an an inclusive interpretation of 'sex'.
The Supreme Court are fully entitled to take that view to reach their judgment, though some of us will say that it wasn't the most effective means at their disposal. Therefore the legal ground is that the Supreme Court did not find the intention of parliament written in a single piece of statute, not that the intention does not exist in statute. This is perhaps a subtle point, and people can be forgiven for not having full realisation of it.
However examination of the Supreme Court judgment, tempered by the caution advised by Lord Sumption and Lady Hale show the presumption of gaps made by those who may have not read the judgment more carefully.
The Supreme Court have indeed flattened the rights of trans people with a GRC with their judgment - there can be no doubt of that, and it is not denied. However the SC have said that the rights of trans people with a GRC become the rights of transgender people (trans people without a GRC) forward for cases forward of the date of the judgment, that is to say that their rights can instead be considered under the ground of gender reassignment.
Accordingly, the requirement for an examination of pursuing a ''a legitimate aim by proportionate means'' remains intact. Aurora, Falkner in the name of the EHRC and indeed Sex Matters have been reading down the law as if the Supreme Court are saying that the legal requirement of balance becomes perfunctory.
In the above you should be able to see why Sex Matters are disappointed with the judgments reached in both Kelly and Peggie.
Consideration of the Kelly and Peggie judgments through this lens helps one understand the lack of success experienced by the claimants in both cases.
Consideration of Lord Hodge in his interview brings you to that place, that the Supreme Court did not intend to produce a short cut that blanket bans are readily available as an outcome of their ruling. Lord Hodge has made clear, it was never their intention to do so as they had not heard evidence from both sides. This is the basis of the challenge in the High Court, Good Law Project v EHRC.
I should make clear, that no form of AI was used to prepare or write my post, so claims that this is AI and therefore incorrect are false.
Last edited:
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
monkers
Shaman
Clownish.
I'm speaking about the law, and ''contemporaneous'' means the timeline pertaining to the event. In UK law it is recognised that there are two reproductive sexes, and that there are two fully recognised genders, plus partial recognition of non-binary people.
I'm uncertain thinking about it how your post broke through as I have you on ignore.
Last edited:
AuroraSaab
Pharaoh
You can argue pedantic legal points to yourself all you like. Use AI, crib from the GLP, whatever. You simply want a platform on here to sow confusion about the law in order to maintain your access to women's spaces.
CXRAndy
Pharaoh
You're talking twaddle. The supreme Court made it clear. The Peggie case was dog shịt and is being appealed.
Its all changing back to common sense
monkers
Shaman
So you will say. i note you continue to refuse to play the ball and try to play the person instead by use of personal slights which is interesting.
However your team have lost three court cases in a row, that I think must be every case since the Supreme Court judgment. I would be quite happy for you to continue but for the fact that victims of harassment like Beth Upton are left in the wake.
I have skimmed the submission of application by Sex Matters made to the High Court in relation to Hampstead Heath ponds. I have to say, that I feel that it should not pass the permission stage due to the legal demerits it contains, I do however feel indifferent, for if the application proceeds to a hearing, I'll be happy to watch your reaction and that of Sex matters when it fails and leads to claims of ''travesty''.
PS, as an aside I do not agree with claims about ball pits either, but that is a rabbit hole I'll leave to others to dispense with.
Last edited:
