What is a woman?

[spen666]

It's a point of view. However some people might think that 140 characters including spaces rather long. Of course it could be covered in four words - ''trans women are women''.

In the spirit of trying to be helpful, and find some level of agreement with you, I invite you and other readers to compare relevants laws such as the GRA2004 and the EA2010 with their motor insurance certificate.

There is the section that first lists who and what is covered - the application. Example, the policyholder, spouse, named drivers, the vehicle or vehicles, the selected extent of cover, legal protection, windscreen, etc.

The is the section that lists exceptions - the disapplication. Example, Acts of God, use in connection with hire or reward, use in connection with the motor trade, racing, etc.

The EA2010 is a consolidating act of prior legislation attempting to bring various prior discrimination law into one place without modification of those acts. The DDA1995 and SDA1005 for example are both replaced by the EA2010 whereas the GRA2004 is not. This is because unlike the DDA1995 and SDA1995 the GRA2004 is a 'deeming' act, rather than a discrimination act and therefore not repealed or amended by the EA2010. People who acquire a GRC through the legal process become the gender and sex of the amended birth certificate.

The EA2010 consolidates the SDA1995 and the GRA2004 within it. Therefore definitions of 'sex' are carried over from each in consolidation.

While the GRA does not provide a legal definition of 'sex', it makes clear that both 'gender' and 'sex' are amendable categories under the law.
Statute law treats both sex and gender identity as binary. In turn the EA2010 does not provide a legal definition of 'sex'.

The EA2010 accordingly accommodates 6 pathways of protection within its scope in a 3 by 2 framework.

Natal men and women are protected under 'sex' but not gender reassignment.

Natal men and women intending to undergo, or are undergoing gender reassignment are protected in their birth sex and under 'gender reassignment'.

Natal men and women who have undergone transition and have obtained a full GRC are protected under both 'acquired sex' and 'gender reassignment' depending accordingly on the nature of the discrimination.

These provisions are for 'all purposes' except where they are disapplied. For example, parenthood, gender affected sport.

This is what the law says as intended by parliament. There are those who disagree with the law. They are free to disagree with the law, but as the High Court has said, that does not mean they are very much not free to discriminate.

The Supreme Court have the role of discerning whether the lower courts are correct in their construction or whether parliament intended something else.

Claims that ''we all know what a woman is'' fail to address the legal point. That is that the Supreme Court must find fault with the construction of the lower court in order to dismiss it, and instead find in favour of the appellants.

TLDR - more than 140 characters

 

[monkers]

TLDR - more than 140 characters

Are you one of the lazy civil servants that Bad Enoch wants to put in jail?

 

[monkers]

TLDR - more than 140 characters

We'll just go with 'trans women are women' then.

 

[matticus]

This is what the law says as intended by parliament. There are those who disagree with the law. They are free to disagree with the law, but as the High Court has said, that does not mean they are very much not free to discriminate.

I agree with the above text - but want to emphasise the bold part. Laws are made by - and for - people. They are often imperfect, and sometimes plain wrong.

 

[monkers]

I agree with the above text - but want to emphasise the bold part. Laws are made by - and for - people. They are often imperfect, and sometimes plain wrong.

I agree. Sometimes though the law is just misunderstood. It's quite surprising to hear MPs and sometimes Ministers falsely representing the law.

It's worrying to hear people believing what they read or hear on the internet about free speech. While in the UK we are signed up to convention rights, in the USA they are not. In the UK we temper a qualified right to free speech by access to the courts by the various routes. In the USA it seems you just buy a six shooter, stick it in someone's ear while insisting they take it back.

 

[spen666]

Are you one of the lazy civil servants that Bad Enoch wants to put in jail?

We'll just go with 'trans women are women' then.

Sorry, that is 2 messages.

 

[monkers]

Sorry, that is 2 messages.

Is that now banned on Twatter too?

 

[icowden]

Is that now banned on Twatter too?

I think it's X now, and no-one of any value goes there any more.

 

[monkers]

I think it's X now, and no-one of any value goes there any more.

I don't go there either, but my post was in reference to something Spen said.

 

[spen666]

Is that now banned on Twatter too?

Perhaps to speed up court proceedings, get rid of backlogs in criminal courts etc, all submissions should be limited to the length of a single tweet - could be interesting to see submissions on this basis in any case

Feel free to post whatever you want, but I won't be replying

 

[monkers]

Feel free to post whatever you want, but I won't be replying

You just did!

 

[winjim]

Every time the question is brought up using the ridiculous phrasing in the thread title, I think of this.


View: https://youtu.be/MnMTK8EdsOc?si=-BHosGx7V-Yr2VSV

 

["slow horse" aka "another sam"]

It's good that "trans women are women" came up, as it's foundational. They aren't, of course.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I draw no distinction here between 'woman' and 'female'. A woman is simply an adult female. I think most humans would still agree.

Words are important. All the words in the world won't turn a man into a woman, except as a legal fiction.

I think it's X now, and no-one of any value goes there any more.

God is still there, along with his unruly creations.


View: https://x.com/dinahbrand2/status/1860722639712502005

It's not all sunshine and rainbows, but free speech seldom is.

Every time the question is brought up using the ridiculous phrasing in the thread title, I think of this.

View: https://youtu.be/MnMTK8EdsOc?si=-BHosGx7V-Yr2VSV

From the lyrics:
It's time to move over

Indeed apt.

 

[winjim]

You know the question as posed in the thread title is unanswerable, right? Many have tried and many have failed. You're on a hiding to nothing by even phrasing it that way.

A woman is whoever I'm referring to when I use the word 'woman'.

 

[AuroraSaab]

We have a perfectly adequate definition of 'woman'. It's one that everybody understood for several thousand years. Your definition is meaningless. Words have meaning and those meanings need to be based in reality.

'Hot chocolate is what I am referring to when I use the word hot chocolate. As in 'Come and drink your hot chocolate before it gets cold, kids'. The hot chocolate I am referring to: