What is a woman?

[monkers]

Keep posting Aurora; have you no stamina. Lack of inspiration?

Here's you posting about the view of the commission as if you know what you are talking about ...

🏳

And yet the EHRC have made clear it isn't, regardless of having a GRC or not, because their sex is male.

And here is the EHRC advising the Supreme Court ...

“The central issue raised by this appeal is how ‘sex’, ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are defined in the Equality Act 2010.

“On that point, our position is that when Parliament passed the Equality Act, it intended those who have acquired a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) to be treated as their certified sex. So a trans woman with a GRC is legally recognised as a woman under the Equality Act, and a trans man with a GRC is legally recognised as a man.

“We look forward to the Supreme Court’s judgment providing an authoritative interpretation of the existing law in this area.”

 

[AuroraSaab]

Unsurprisingly you are being disingenuous and have edited out the bit where they say:

“We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition. It creates significant inconsistencies, which impair the proper functioning of the Equality Act and jeopardise the rights and interests of women and same-sex attracted people".

The EHRC have issued guidance that says even those with a GRC can be excluded when legitimate. You know this. Their preferred solution to the confusion that the current situation causes for service providers is that Parliament should fix the problem by expressly disapplying the GRA from the Equality Act.

I don't propose to re run the Equality Act arguments again. Believe what you like.

 

[monkers]

Unsurprisingly you are being disingenuous and have edited out the bit where they say:

“We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition. It creates significant inconsistencies, which impair the proper functioning of the Equality Act and jeopardise the rights and interests of women and same-sex attracted people".

The EHRC have issued guidance that says even those with a GRC can be excluded when legitimate. You know this. Their preferred solution to the confusion that the current situation causes for service providers is that Parliament should fix the problem by expressly disapplying the GRA from the Equality Act.

I don't propose to re run the Equality Act arguments again. Believe what you like.

I quoted the bit that showed you were talking through your hat.

Keep posting those excuses.

 

[monkers]

I don't propose to re run the Equality Act arguments again. Believe what you like.

The problem for you is Aurora that you believed and spent hundreds of pages justifying stuff that just wasn't true.

What I have demonstrated here is that parliament intended 'sex' to include both classes of biological sex and legal sex. You didn't believe others who tried either. @Bromptonaut had been very patient with you. He explained to you that a person is the sex that is stated on their birth certificate. How could parliament have intended anything else when they wrote that into statute?

I said that all along, and the record shows. Now it becomes obvious that all the 'mental gymnastics'' and all the 'magical thinking' were all your own. Whether you thought you had some original thought or followed some pack I can not say. However there's no escape from this truth now.

Lady Haldaine said that parliament intended 'sex' to mean both classes of sex.

Lady Dorian said the same.

The earlier guidelines issued by Falkner were incorrect. She has been obliged to revise. Something changed.

The Commission were agreeing with FWS in the Scottish Courts et al, but now they are not. You might wonder why the change.

Maybe you'll figure it out, but if not, you can always ask someone who knows.

I agreed with you at various points that there were possible oversights or anomalies in the law.

You approach was wrong, oversight and anomalies were never going to show that parliament did not intend what they legislated - just that some things might need clarification.

I've been just saying, wait for the ruling of the Supreme Court. Their job is not fix anomalies, unless they can find other interpretations of statute. Their job is to say whether or not they agree with the construction of the argument made by Lady Dorian.

However you've been ranting, and name-calling me as 'arrogant' and other things whenever I try to explain.

I predict you aren't going to accept this, and will return to type, by calling me 'pompous', 'arrogant' and much else.

But as I always told you, not only do I have a niece, but I have a niece who is a barrister and well-regarded in Europe as something of an expert in European human rights law.

That gave me confidence in being correct; you mistook that for arrogance.

Don't let that put you off. Keep posting and calling me names if it's good for your mental health. I can take it.

 

[AuroraSaab]

However you've been ranting, and name-calling me as 'arrogant' and other things whenever I try to explain.
I predict you aren't going to accept this, and will return to type, by calling me 'pompous', 'arrogant' and much else.

I'm going to go with the guidance from the EHRC itself, thanks. They're hoping Parliament will officially clarify it eventually as they clearly believe that's necessary now. I suppose we'll see.

No certificate changes your sex though. You know that. We all know that. A man with a certificate is a man with a certificate.

Don't let that put you off. Keep posting and calling me names if it's good for your mental health. I can take it.

You moan when I post. You moan when I don't post. My mental health is pretty good actually. It's unaffected by your behaviour so I'm happy to leave the projecting and continued histrionics to you.

 

[monkers]

I'm going to go with the guidance from the EHRC itself, thanks. They're hoping Parliament will officially clarify it eventually as they clearly believe that's necessary now. I suppose we'll see.

No certificate changes your sex though. You know that. We all know that. A man with a certificate is a man with a certificate.



You moan when I post. You moan when I don't post. My mental health is pretty good actually. It's unaffected by your behaviour so I'm happy to leave the projecting and continued histrionics to you.

Keep posting.

I have to advise you that it's now futile.

You claimed for hundreds of pages, that the EA2010 could only be read as 'biological' sex; that it did not include trans people.

You later clung to an interpretation of a version of the EHRC guidelines like there was no tomorrow. The advice given to the Supreme Court was that the correct interpretation was that both classes are included in the category of 'sex'.

No amount of gentle persuasion or robust argument was going to change your mind. You were so determined to be right, that you invested endless time and words to constructing an argument around a falsehood.

You keep coming back to the same ad nauseum whine - trans women still have the same DNA yadaya. Nobody has disputed that even once.

This thread is about the Supreme Court hearing. The court have heard Crawford from the advocate for the Scottish Ministers, and the Commission who presented the case that the legal construction is correct - it is what parliament intended. This is what I have been keen to impress upon you, and to no avail. N was correct, the argument was just a huge waste of everybody's time.

O'Neill for FWS just kept ranting about the patriarchy. He said ''confront the patriarchy'' 36 times in his morning session I am told, and again kept saying it in the summing up. All irrelevant, but it was all he had. And Cooper acting for SM wasn't able to come up with grounds for saying that trans women are not covered as a class in the category of sex.

Women's Place UK have since folded - perhaps they know the game's up?

Keep posting. I'm enjoying seeing how you hope to keep twisting and turning in denial. I'm pretty sure it's all going to be my fault, but that's OK.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I'm not going to keep posting on a topic - the Equality Act - that we have raked over a dozen times already. There isn't even much to say on the high court case - the arguments have been made in the public domain for years. Whatever the outcome, women will continue to campaign to uphold their rights and exclude all men - including those with a special piece of paper in the cupboard at home - from women's spaces and services.

 

[monkers]

I'm not going to keep posting on a topic - the Equality Act - that we have raked over a dozen times already. There isn't even much to say on the high court case - the arguments have been made in the public domain for years. Whatever the outcome, women will continue to campaign to uphold their rights and exclude all men - including those with a special piece of paper in the cupboard at home - from women's spaces and services.

Some women.

You'll be wasting your life. Instead do nice things, respect others, be kind, share some love.

 

["slow horse" aka "another sam"]

Oh, kindness:

https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/the-pity-party-on-the-left
It’s also worth remembering that the stated goal for progressives is not just to be kind, but also – and perhaps more importantly – to get others to be kind too. It’s one thing to try, unobtrusively, to model kindness in your own life, and quite another to start telling other people to do it. In the latter case, you’ve moved squarely into the missionary zone; and from there it seems but a short step for some to zealously policing others’ attitudes and speech more generally. In particular, it’s seems a short step to policing the attitudes and speech of women.

 

[monkers]

Oh, kindness:

https://kathleenstock.substack.com/p/the-pity-party-on-the-left
It’s also worth remembering that the stated goal for progressives is not just to be kind, but also – and perhaps more importantly – to get others to be kind too. It’s one thing to try, unobtrusively, to model kindness in your own life, and quite another to start telling other people to do it. In the latter case, you’ve moved squarely into the missionary zone; and from there it seems but a short step for some to zealously policing others’ attitudes and speech more generally. In particular, it’s seems a short step to policing the attitudes and speech of women.

I'm not following random link to some man hater like Stock. I might be a lesbian, but I'm not one of the man haters. What's wrong with being kind. AuroraSexAssignedAtBirth hasn't finished calling people she doesn't know, and knows nothing about, 'nonces' etc. What a charmer.

I don't think you are well-place to lecture me. You're another one of that same group propagating hate. I'd round you all up and stick you on the Bibby Stockholm without internet access.

 

["slow horse" aka "another sam"]

I'm not following random link to some man hater like Stock.

Loving women ≠ hating men.

I might be a lesbian

And "might" might be doing some heavy lifting.

 

[monkers]

Loving women ≠ hating men.


And "might" might be doing some heavy lifting.

I'll carry on being me to my last breath. I'll never be captured by the hateful.

 

["slow horse" aka "another sam"]

I'll carry on being me to my last breath. I'll never be captured by the hateful.

Good for you. We have that in common.

 

[monkers]

Good for you. We have that in common.

I think not.

 

[AuroraSaab]

AuroraSexAssignedAtBirth hasn't finished calling people she doesn't know, and knows nothing about, 'nonces' etc. What a charmer.

What are Minor Attracted Persons if they aren't nonces? You seem to be defending paedophiles now.

I don't think you are well-place to lecture me. You're another one of that same group propagating hate. I'd round you all up and stick you on the Bibby Stockholm without internet access.

I don't doubt that you'd be at the front of the line when they call for volunteers to round people up.