cga1r.bsky.social
Very little to say which is of any interest to anyone.
Taking the free advice; talk less. Smile more.
107 posts
7 followers
18 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Nicola wasn’t bothered about women’s lives being unliveable when Isla Bryson, a convicted rapist, was moved to the female prison estate on the back of unlawful self ID policies. And still isn’t.
comment in response to
post
Trans men (women with pc of GR) are lawfully excluded from men spaces as these are single sex. They may be lawfully excluded from some female spaces if their presence (overtly male) would be unfair or distressing to other women (eg. DA services or testosterone in female sports).
comment in response to
post
If they are not taking testosterone they can play on a woman’s or mixed team. If they are taking testosterone, they can play on a mixed team. What are you objecting to? Fairness and safety for women?
comment in response to
post
Yes, but they still lost in the lower courts. Either way, they got ahead of UK equality law. And we are seeing the same thing with the Scottish Borders school toilets.
comment in response to
post
The law is the same. The Equality Act 2010. Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.
Gender Recognition Act was 2004 I think.
None of them have changed.
comment in response to
post
comment in response to
post
We don’t all agree about single sex spaces. Hence the thread. A whole host of people are upset at single sex spaces excluding people of the opposite sex, with or without a GRC, and want it based on self ID. And suggest it was previously the law.
comment in response to
post
I’m aware of why FWS went to the Supreme Court. They lost in 2 lower courts. The Scottish government argued that men with a GRC were women for the F 50% quota.
The Equality Act hasn’t change. There would needed to have been a new act of parliament.
comment in response to
post
No, the ruling did not change that. The organisations now reviewing their policies makes it clear that the law didn’t change. There are exemptions in the GRA where sex is not changed for all purposes. Also, the Scottish GRR was not assented into law as it went beyond UK equality law.
comment in response to
post
I’m not embarrassed. I knew what the laws were. Single sex spaces have always been allowed. It’s always been lawful to exclude people of the opposite sex, and still is, trans or not. I’m not printing a card to say it’s a breach of my human rights.
comment in response to
post
There is no evidence it is a reinterpretation. And if they do, they do. One suspects they won’t, and if they wished the GRR for Scotland could have been assented. They would need hours and hours of parliamentary debate like it took. But who knows.
comment in response to
post
You have a weird interpretation of harassment.
comment in response to
post
Thank you for the correction. Did it help? Either way, the point stands. Men with or without a GRC can be lawfully excluded from women’s spaces and vice versa. That is the law in the UK and always has been. The UKSC ruling did not change it. If it has been misinterpreted- look elsewhere.
comment in response to
post
Gender recognition is a protected characteristic in the EA 2010, with or without a certificate. Both laws need to be read together. Equality Act is for services and service providers.
comment in response to
post
In what way? Cos I think you are trying to argue that the UK Supreme Court ruling is somehow incorrect? And not that lobby groups and the Scottish Government, in particular, got ahead of the law? And now organisations are having to review their policies.
comment in response to
post
Excluding members of the opposite sex from a service is the proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim if the service needs to be single sex, like toilets and changing rooms, F sports.
comment in response to
post
Yes, but the GRA became the EA2010. As did the sex discrimination act 1975.
Men and women with a GRC are not the opposite sex under the Equality Act. Hence the UKSC ruling on biological sex.
comment in response to
post
Accessing the women’s loo and sports and services isn’t protecting trans people from hate crime, it’s breaching the rights of other women.
comment in response to
post
Charmed, I’m sure.
comment in response to
post
Of course they can, and do. Homophobia exists. Racism. Bigotry. Sectarianism. Anti semitism. Misogyny. All present in society.
Erosion of single sex provision and association, and lessening sex discrimination laws, including for trans men isn’t the solution to any of that.
comment in response to
post
Do you behave like this in real life?
comment in response to
post
I’m not screeching at trans women. On here or in real life. That would be discrimination. And possibly a hate crime.
comment in response to
post
Disagree. I’m not sure what with. That men and women, trans and LGB have protections from discrimination under UK Equality law is a good thing?
comment in response to
post
Should you be on SM? You seem childish?
comment in response to
post
How am I harassing anyone?
It isn’t my fault you have an echo chamber.
comment in response to
post
It’s not smug. It’s not my fault trans people were sold a lie as to their entitlement to lawful provision of single sex spaces and it has taken a decade for ordinary Scottish women to undo it.
comment in response to
post
You leave.
comment in response to
post
Leave an app? You leave.
comment in response to
post
Lawfully in UK, yes they are. With or without a GRC. The UK Supreme Court ruled it so.
comment in response to
post
My country is Scotland. Male and Female were upheld and affirmed in UK law. That impacts everyone including lesbians and gay men.
comment in response to
post
Very. What law are you taking about? The Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Act didn’t receive royal assent into law as it breached UK equality law..
the GRR was essentially self ID.
comment in response to
post
In what way? The case was not about protecting women. It was a challenge to the Scottish Government’s ruling that a man with the PC of GRC would be in the F quota for 50% Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.
comment in response to
post
I’m not bigoted. Upholding single sex services in law where they are necessary is not bigoted. It’s the very definition of inclusion.
comment in response to
post
So on self ID, in law, or if FWS had lost, a lesbian group would not be able to exclude any man, even non trans.
comment in response to
post
Then, again, excluding from single sex services or provisions if you have altered your appearance to make your sex more ambiguous may not be unlawful. The service provider would have to offer their rationale if challenged.
comment in response to
post
What bigotry? Single sex spaces, services and associations are not bigoted. Recognising rights in law is not bigoted. Privacy and dignity is not bigoted.
comment in response to
post
Who can’t do what? Anyone can exclude anyone from their dating pool.
But people of 1 sex can meet up, for a whole host of political and non political purposes, without including someone of opposite sex, if it is proportionate to do so. Freedom of association. That’s valid.
comment in response to
post
Regardless of who’s attracted to trans women, anyone has the ability to meet without the opposite sex present if it is proportionate. And a women with PC of sexual orientation is able to exclude men, if they need or wish to.
comment in response to
post
A right to privacy and dignity for trans people doesn’t mean that people who are not trans have no right to privacy and dignity.
It needs to be proportionate for a legitimate aim.
In UK law single sex provisions are lawful and opposite sex can be excluded under that rule.
comment in response to
post
Lesbian women can set up a lesbian network group and no men are allowed. That is lawful as the Equality Act stands. Self ID as a law would abolish that.
comment in response to
post
In what way are bi women now lesbians?
They are free to associate with men or women.
Importantly, lesbian and gay men retain the protection of same sex attraction as sex is defined in law. And can exclude opposite sex from dating site, or political or personal associations.
comment in response to
post
The interpretation was wrong as lobby groups, and the Scottish Government with GRR bill pushed self ID. And Scottish women in particular have spent a decade trying to have a voice about the impact of self ID on other groups, especially women but including lesbians and gay men.
comment in response to
post
Who’s human rights? The Equality Act sets out the lawful position for anti discrimination in UK. Gender reassignment is only 1 protected characteristic. There are nine in total, including sex and sexual orientation.
Again, it isn’t a human right to breach other people’s privacy and dignity.
comment in response to
post
The Scottish Government were the Respondents.
comment in response to
post
Then they would either tell women they were female sexed or use a unisex option. If you go to lengths to disguise your sex, you may get misgendered. Men and women who are not trans also have rights for privacy and dignity.
comment in response to
post
No, I support lawful exclusion from single sex spaces and services for members of the opposite sex. And for lawful associations of people of one sex. That could be toilets, prisons, hospital wards, prostate cancer or mental health groups, lesbian or gay men groups, Girl Guiding, Woman’s Institute.