Someone has just pointed out that the new transphobic "guidance" is all written in the conditional; it uses "SHOULD" not "MUST". If this is correct it presumably means it is written to APPEAR compulsory but is in fact NOT AT ALL compulsory, it is not at all mandatory to exclude us. - ThreadSky

natacha.bsky.social • 9 days ago

Someone has just pointed out that the new transphobic "guidance" is all written in the conditional;

it uses

"SHOULD"

not

"MUST".

If this is correct it presumably means it is written to APPEAR compulsory but is in fact NOT AT ALL compulsory, it is not at all mandatory to exclude us.

Comments

pollik.bsky.social•9 days ago

Of course. That is the holy grail of politics and bigotry.

grimupnord.bsky.social•9 days ago

I noticed that Bridget Phillipson was using 'should' and 'would' when doing the media rounds about the SC ruling last Tuesday, before her Commons statement later the same day.

heyheygillian.bsky.social•9 days ago

The problem then is that if a venue is sensible and decides not to change anything, some idle terf will turn up and kick off to make a point, and get a crowdfunder out of it

nancymk.bsky.social•9 days ago

It's not "guidance" in the sense of policy of any kind. It's a statement of their interpretation of the law post SC judgement.

strivecampaign.bsky.social•9 days ago

Exactly what it is Nancy.

We’ve been brainstorming for some direct action challenges to use the existing law and this guidance if and when any organisation try to implement it.

Basically going to use their own words and laws against them.

natacha.bsky.social•9 days ago

Yes, it’s just a bunch of transphobes trying to make their bigotry appear legal.

nevereverdave.bsky.social•9 days ago

Precisely what it is. Their last non statutory anti trans guidance was ignored by everyone.

The media and the Scottish Tories (from the safety of parliamentary privilege on the parliament floor) have tried to promote this; #PammyGosal but as before the legal costs will be borne by sued businesses.

natacha.bsky.social•9 days ago

Yes, they have form.

nikipoet.bsky.social•9 days ago

That’s not the impression the BBC’s reporting is giving unfortunately.

strivecampaign.bsky.social•9 days ago

Surprised, the BBC journalists probably helped write it.

thatdocphoenix.com•9 days ago

That’s because it’s interim guidance. It can’t legally say must until they write the statutory version which will be passed by Parliament

maddie.carter-smith.uk•9 days ago

I wonder what the list of exclusions to any "must" would include.

As I've seen women's toilets closed before with signs saying to use the men's.

gullvei-heid.bsky.social•9 days ago

📌

paul2626.bsky.social•9 days ago

It's "guidance" anyway, so none of it has actual legal standing, it's just advice and interpretation. To my mind, people need to ignore it and make this advice as impossible to actually implement as possible to make it more likely that politicians do get motivated to change the law.

translegalproject.bsky.social•9 days ago

It is absolutely NOT mandatory for service providers or employers to do any of this. And it's absolutely NOT what the Supreme Court ruled (though that was bad enough).
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-sumption-trans-biolgical-woman-supreme-court-b2735828.html
Businesses are being pushed to 'comply in advance'

victoriaelizabeth.bsky.social•9 days ago

Maybe this Supreme Court judge should have written it so it was more understandable. He should be told to take it back and re-do it.

jennymckinnon.bsky.social•9 days ago

it is guidance. they cannot make law.

nevereverdave.bsky.social•9 days ago

Pretty sure #KeirStarmer can't make it law fast enough. Interim guidance likely to have happened via the usual (at great distance) No10 flunky calling the utterly compromised EHRC Chair in the night in her lair.

natacha.bsky.social•9 days ago

If the reaction of the public is what @hleehurley.com is saying it is, it will be the end of his political career, and he will be remembered for it in the same way Thatcher is remembered for Section 28.

sarahviktoria.bsky.social•9 days ago

The party is expendable. Keir Starmer will know this.

Other right wing parties are available to take over and that's all that matters to these people.

natacha.bsky.social•9 days ago

Yes, and he is expending it. I wonder if he is looking to a career change to become Reform leader…?

jennay.bsky.social•9 days ago

Unfortunately Wes the Weasel is lining himself up for a Lab leadership run,
expect even more culture wars removal of rights if that excuse of a human gets in…

sarahviktoria.bsky.social•9 days ago

Seat in the House of Lords. Vance's peace envoy to the Middle East. Limo and protection for the rest of his life. £115000 /year allowance.

transbritannia.bsky.social•9 days ago

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-3-freedom-torture-and-inhuman-or-degrading-treatment

transbritannia.bsky.social•9 days ago

People who don't work with the law day in day out often miss this. A single word can change everything. Ehen dealing with legal definitions it is the exact wording that needs to be learned.

Particularly for police officers on the street. They are not walking "manuals".

So carry a print out

natacha.bsky.social•9 days ago

Yes, and everyone of us needs to emphasise this and keep doing so.

transbritannia.bsky.social•9 days ago

Print out, digest it, view stated cases. View college of policing authorised professional practice.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/part/I

transbritannia.bsky.social•9 days ago

It might be fashionable to be antagonistic to the police but ive found its much better to be polite, patient and understand they are bound by law and trying to navigate complexity.

Many will be LGBT and understanding. Many may not. We are all ambasadors of our community

applesnspice.bsky.social•9 days ago

And let's be clear, if this guidance from the UK's EHRC became statutory segregation, it would be the policing of everyone's appearance and whether people look like some sort of narrow patriachal standard. It couldn't be less about feminism or women's rights. Everyone is a target.

sapphyskys.bsky.social•9 days ago

Unfortunately this will mean that it's also an option to exclude trans people from male and female lavatories and not provide the "mixed sex" ones.

auska.esq•9 days ago

Not because of this drivel, this has no standing.

sapphyskys.bsky.social•9 days ago

If the language of the guidelines is to be read as listing things that are legal options (because each provision is something organisations "should" do but don't need to), that is one of the options it presents.

I'm not saying that it actually is legal, just highlighting that it's in the guidelines

auska.esq•9 days ago

I'm not sure what you're saying? This is a letter to santa. They can write just whatever masturbatory fantasy on it (and have). Even if provisions do go through, it does not mean it's this exact list. So right now all we can take away from it is that this sort of confusion is what gets them off.

sapphyskys.bsky.social•9 days ago

You really don't think there are transphobes who are going to look at this, same way they've looked at the SC judgment, and use it to justify jumping ahead on the most extreme measures they can?

You don't think it's worth seriously looking at their letter to santa to see what they'll push for?

auska.esq•9 days ago

Ah, I see. I think your "this will mean" threw me off.

So yes, it is useful to look at it but ultimately none of these specifics make any sense or are legal in any way (ECHR) and the *chaos and fear itself* will cause segregation and abuse. So their details don't matter at this point, to me.

natacha.bsky.social•9 days ago

Which would add to people opting to go elsewhere. Or wee on the carpet outside.

sapphyskys.bsky.social•9 days ago

I think "go elsewhere" is the point - as in "go away". They just want us gone.

I say "us". Is it wrong to use collelctive language like that when I'm not in the UK?

I fear for and my heart bleeds for my UK kin.

helenlawson2007.bsky.social•9 days ago

The UK's Laws are based on Equal Rights, it's why they can only give guidance as single sex spaces are exceptions and so carry no real legal position. They have to destroy the equal rights laws to create legal single sex spaces... the ramifications for trans & women's rights would be horrific.🏳️‍⚧️♀️🏳️‍🌈

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply