"Ultimately this is the question our work must confront the Government with: is Labour’s desire to eradicate trans people from public life greater than its attachment to international human rights norms?" https://goodlaw.social/1a8p
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I think Labour have already lost a huge amount of support due to their attacks on older & disabled ppl. So quite how many any % would be now is pretty well rhetorical!
My skeleton key... if I'm ever forced out of the gents. There aren't enough accessible toilets & I do not want to be forced to take up space that is needed by those less mobile than myself. This sits very badly with me. I wish you Lawers all the best. There must be a better future for us, surely?
Certainly seems like it.
The centrists still making excuses for Starmer think Farage is the one we should be afraid of, but Starmer is going to be the one to take us out of the ECHR. I would put money on it.
Why does it need to be challenged? I understand that the Supreme Court ruling was very clear. What seems to be the issue is how it is being interpreted by, e.g., the Gov't and the EHRC. To quote Ian Dunt 'They quote a legal reality that does not exist'. Is that not where challenges need to be made?
the ruling that waffled on about 'biological sex' without ever properly defining it and said explicitly that "trans men are biological women, so they don't belong in men's spaces, but it's also fair to exclide them from women's spaces if they look too male" was not very clear
yes, bad actors are overextending and treating its reach as broader than it actually is, but the ruling itself is still nonsensical anti-trans garbage that needs to go in the bin
The Supreme Court ruling does not define what a woman is. The role of the court was to decide on the use of the word "woman" in the Equality Act 2010. That's it. Just that one piece of legislation. The ruling does not have direct application for legislation outside of that Act.
yeah, and their decision on the use of the word "woman" in the equality act 2010 was incoherent bullshit for which they consulted anti-trans hate groups, what part of this are you not getting
Have you read the ruling? Have you read Paragraph 2 of the ruling? What part of the ruling, specifically, do you regard as 'incoherent bullshit'?
I repeat, I think how it is being interpreted by Government and the EHRC is wrong, and that is the substantive area to be challenged.
i already mentioned the part where it argues that trans men as "biological women" can legally be excluded from men's spaces, but then also suggests that it could be legal to exclude them from women's spaces because of how they look, right? i did bring that up?
What clarity is there in asserting that the Equality Act 2010 must be understood in ideological terms (“biological women” and “biological men”), without even defining those, based on an ascientific assertion of sex being binary?
The Supreme Court ruling does not define what a woman is. The role of the court was to decide on the use of the word "woman" in the Equality Act 2010. That's it. Just that one piece of legislation. The ruling does not have direct application for legislation outside of that Act.
My reply is going to be crude, but I'm not apologising. They're trying to appease the possible Nigel Fuckage voters in the hope they'll see that "Labour" can be trusted with their vote as well. The next thing they'll do is try to get the #Cnutservatives voters by saying no to ECHR.
They are transfixed by the Daily Mail and fear of Farage. It’s insane . Decency and kindness needs a champion
So glad you are standing up. Please post the link to donate x
Comments
The centrists still making excuses for Starmer think Farage is the one we should be afraid of, but Starmer is going to be the one to take us out of the ECHR. I would put money on it.
I repeat, I think how it is being interpreted by Government and the EHRC is wrong, and that is the substantive area to be challenged.
So glad you are standing up. Please post the link to donate x