Why is @theguardian.com trying to muddy the waters following Supreme Court ruling?
@gabyhinsliff.bsky.social asks:
Q: 'Which toilets trans people can use'
A: Same sex or mixed sex
Q: 'What this means for your local women’s running club or gym'
A: If using single sex exceptions, women only
Clarity.
@gabyhinsliff.bsky.social asks:
Q: 'Which toilets trans people can use'
A: Same sex or mixed sex
Q: 'What this means for your local women’s running club or gym'
A: If using single sex exceptions, women only
Clarity.
Reposted from
The Guardian
It is politicians – not regulators – who must make sense of the supreme court’s gender ruling | Gaby Hinsliff
Comments
This is why they use the term 'a high school understanding of sex' - not as an acknowledgement, but as an insult. Their only hope is in reassuring themselves that tertiary level biology undermines absolutely everything we are taught about biology at school.
It doesn't.
Because, they bought into Stonewall's ideology shift back in 2015 and they don't know how to back out without losing face.
Because they are terrified of their own workforce.
Because they are The Guardian.
'The words “sex”, “woman” and “man” in sections 11 and 212(1) mean (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man' pg. 83.
Clarity.
https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
Why the Graun & Hinsliff think including males with trans identities in female services, provisions & sport is 'inclusive' is a mystery.
'Inclusion' meaning asymmetric androcentric inclusion (male exceptionalism) has ideological & political work to do.
That is, to position some males as just another kind of woman.
Yes. Good.
'Preferred gender' is clearly not the same as sex.
So she is once again promoting male exceptionalism.