What is a woman?

[Mr Celine]

It's like George Orwell never existed.

His grave is nearby - I better check it's still there ..

He never did.

 

[matticus]

He never did.

Who?

 

[icowden]

Of course, wordes chaungen over tyme, elles we wolden alle stille speke like this.

Apropos of nothing one of my favourite twitter accounts is this one:-

View: https://x.com/LeVostreGC/status/1857591116557856858

 

[AuroraSaab]

You'll still be a liar and dogmatic. Why are you saying that I'll still be a man? Is that your view of lesbian women? Lesbian couples get that quite a lot ''which of you is the man''. What incredible stupidity.

You'll still be the sex you were born, whether that was male or female. My view of lesbian women is that only women can be lesbians. What's incredibly stupid is thinking men can be lesbians.

If we flip it on its head, what does the legal definition do for transmen and women that they are currently being affected by?

If the appeal is lost one possible effect is that a woman who identifies as a man and gets pregnant wouldn't necessarily have the rights that pregnant women have (on the basis of being women). Being pregnant isn't a protected characteristic in the Equality Act.

Language evolves organically over time. When it doesn't, eg when new meanings are imposed on words, then that causes confusion and in some cases detrimental effects.

 

[monkers]

You'll still be the sex you were born, whether that was male or female. My view of lesbian women is that only women can be lesbians. What's incredibly stupid is thinking men can be lesbians.

I'll tell you what is ''incredibly stupid'' - you preaching to lesbians that you know best and will speak for us. I'm biting my tongue to resist saying what I'm actually thinking.

Why do you insist otherwise on repeating yourself ad nauseum. A GRC does not change the biological sex of a person, but it does put them in the same class of sex for protection.

And while Karen Joanne Rowling is busy telling everyone that this inclusion removes the legal protection in the category of 'sex' for women and girls, only there are just three possible takes ...

1 she is attempting to prey on the stupid by use of a logical fallacy.
2 she is actually a complete dumbfark herself.
3 she is a highly manipulative bigot -oh sorry that's the same as 1 isn't it.

Women and girls lose nothing at all by the inclusion of trans people in the class of sex - their protection has been unchanged by the EA2010. A point proven by the fact that tribunals have been fought and won by women taking cases on the protected characteristic of their sex.
The inclusion of trans people in that class adds about 8 000 to the combined man and woman total. If these number were added by an increase in the birth rate nobody would even mention that as a material fact to anything.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I see we're now back to 'You're only really trans with a GRC', a complete flip flop on the 'You are who you say you are' mantra that was insisted on for so long.

Say what you like. If you weren't born female you can't be a lesbian because lesbian means women who are same sex attracted. Not gender identity attracted. Two men who both claim a female gender identity aren't a lesbian couple. If they are then the word 'lesbian' is meaningless.

If men can be the category 'Women' then the category is meaningless and their specific protections are available to anyone. Everybody can be a woman.

 

[monkers]

I see we're now back to 'You're only really trans with a GRC', a complete flip flop on the 'You are who you say you are' mantra that was insisted on for so long.

Say what you like. If you weren't born female you can't be a lesbian because lesbian means women who are same sex attracted. Not gender identity attracted. Two men who both claim a female gender identity aren't a lesbian couple. If they are then the word 'lesbian' is meaningless.

If men can be the category 'Women' then the category is meaningless and their specific protections are available to anyone. Everybody can be a woman.

Hypothetical. A natal man attends a GI clinic. He presents as female but insists he has a male gender identity. Is he in the right place?

The Supreme Court case was brought by FWS, Sex Matters, and others exactly on the express terms of whether a person with a GRC is included in the class of sex under the EA2010.

It's not only me saying that is the differentiation, it is also them. A person born male who identifies as a woman without a GRC has the dual protected characteristic of sex=male, and one of gender reassignment.

This plurality or intersection of characteristics came up in the hearing, with arguments to which applies. I was very frustrated by the advocates and justices at this point. It's dead simple ..

If a trans woman is refused service by say a shop attendant who says, ''no sorry you can't come in here, it's men only'' then that is an actionable case under EA2010 on grounds of sex.

If the same person then goes into a pub and is told, ''piss off we don't serve trannies'', then that is actionable on the grounds of gender reassignment. And that is why trans women need to retain current provisions, because both apply.

Lastly, you keep on at me about grammar. If you are not addressing me personally please use properly grammatically constructed sentences, so that the reader knows if you are addressing them personally or making the general case. I've tried to highlight this before.

 

[Ian H]

Who?

Eric's alter-ego.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Hypothetical. A natal man attends a GI clinic. He presents as female but insists he has a male gender identity. Is he in the right place?

Men can wear whatever they like. There would be no reason to go a gender clinic if he is male and believes himself to have a gender identity which is also male, surely.

If a trans woman is refused service by say a shop attendant who says, ''no sorry you can't come in here, it's women only'' then that is an actionable case under EA2010 on grounds of sex.

And yet the EHRC have made clear it isn't, regardless of having a GRC or not, because their sex is male. (It would have to be justifiable and proportionate to exclude men in terms of what the shop was offering obviously). Any objection on the grounds of sex discrimination would likely fail. An objection on the grounds of gender reassignment would be the avenue to pursue, if someone really wanted to do so.

If the same person then goes into a pub and is told, ''piss off we don't serve trannies'', then that is actionable on the grounds of gender reassignment.

Obviously, and quite rightly.

Lastly, you keep on at me about grammar. If you are not addressing me personally please use properly grammatically constructed sentences, so that the reader knows if you are addressing them personally or making the general case. I've tried to highlight this before.

Sounds like a you problem. Perhaps try thinking that not everything is about you. It might help.

 

[Fab Foodie]

Of course, wordes chaungen over tyme, elles we wolden alle stille speke like this.

You from Devon as well?

 

[monkers]

You from Devon as well?

I thought he was Gerald off Clarkson's farm.

 

[monkers]

Men can wear whatever they like. There would be no reason to go a gender clinic if he is male and believes himself to have a gender identity which is also male, surely.

So yes he is in the wrong place, exactly because he is not a trans woman. He has no need of a GRC, his requirement are quite different, and that is exactly why the differentiation is needed. They are different classes under the law because they are different groups of people.
FWS know this, Sex Matters know this, I know this.

And yet the EHRC have made clear it isn't, regardless of having a GRC or not, because their sex is male. (It would have to be justifiable and proportionate to exclude men in terms of what the shop was offering obviously). Any objection on the grounds of sex discrimination would likely fail. An objection on the grounds of gender reassignment would be the avenue to pursue, if someone really wanted to do so.
Obviously, and quite rightly.
Sounds like a you problem. Perhaps try thinking that not everything is about you. It might help.

The staff at the commission have made it clear, Falkner was appointed by Truss because both are anti-trans with ties to Tufton Street.

Falkner made her thoughts clear along with the intention of Truss and Badenoch (also of Tufton Street) clear. They don't like trans women. More still they don't like them having human rights.

The Commission can advise the courts, but not compel them to rule in their favour. Twice Falkner has found this out when first Lady Haldaine ruled against her submission, and later Lady Dorian ridiculed it.

Falkner is apparently wrong, and you are wrong, unless or until the Supreme Court rules otherwise. We'll have to wait and see if you get the opportunity to put your smug face on.

I don't think everything is about me, I think everything is about the law. I've challenged you before about the EA2010. At one point you even agreed that there are not words included there that either make the term 'sex' to mean biological sex, and no word to mean that the GRA2004 is disapplied in this context.

You've had so many attempts at moving goal posts and at shapeshifting, it seems you can't remember what you've said at various times.

In the Supreme Court the advocates good not provide evidence that the EA means only biological sex. Instead all I heard was emotional pleading that some women want it to be in order to confront the patriarchy. That is not the basis on which the court sat, rather it was to determine if the construction of the Scottish Ministers aligned with what parliament intended. Deaf ears on special pleading I'm afraid.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The only special pleading is from those men who insist on being in women's spaces and services. I won't be smug if the case succeeds nor disappointed if it doesn't. Either way it will simply highlight more inconsistencies and confusion. I don't believe it will be the end of the issue by a long chalk.

 

["slow horse" aka "another sam"]

Obviously YMMV, but it's hard to imagine not feeling at least a little disappointed if the case doesn't succeed.

I think it will.

 

[monkers]

The only special pleading is from those men who insist on being in women's spaces and services. I won't be smug if the case succeeds nor disappointed if it doesn't. Either way it will simply highlight more inconsistencies and confusion. I don't believe it will be the end of the issue by a long chalk.

You think after two rulings, pleading for a third time, on the basis of a desire to smash the patriarchy, rather than judgement on the Scottish Ministers' construction is not 'special pleading'. I doubt I'm alone in thinking it is.

I pretty much know that it won't be permissible for appeal at the EHCR. First of all the Supreme Court will need to give leave for it, and there on the ECtHR need in the first instance to find their submission admissible.