No. You're not the first, and won't be the last, but you completely misunderstand - I can only assume willfully - what the ruling means. Nowhere has it been made unlawful for single-sex facilities to be available for the use of trans people.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Right. But imagine that I'm in charge of a venue. At present I have a number of single-occupancy toilets that are designated as single-sex. I wouldn't be breaking any laws by redesignating them as unisex.
If I ran a men's darts club, I could explicitly state that it was a darts club that was open to both cis and trans men. Again, I would not be breaking any law.
The point is: if anybody is excluded, under the terms of that EA 2010 it has to be both justified and proportionate.
That would be a unisex darts club.
Yes, that's always be fine.
But it would be inaccurate to call it a men's club.
If the men don't care then t would never be challenged.
Absolutely. Everyone needs to know who the facility is for.
If the NHS describes it's ward as female, it cannot place any males there.
The law hasn't changed but it has been clarified.
ok british legalist, i guess you also believe black people didnt used to be human, kings used to have divine rule and women used to be too inferior for enfranchisement
doesnt really matter when it still reifies the term "biological sex" to mean assigned sex, despite the field of biology not using it that way. in the end, this is a crisis for us caused by cissexists' continual use of that ignorant, segregationist, self-absorbed reification
No, I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with it - far from it - but the TERFs are often interpreting it to mean what they think it ought to say rather than what it actually says.
Yes the whole Gender Recognition Act shpuld be repealed.
It's one law that was originally brought n because we didn't have same sex marriage.
With the advent of same sex marriage, it is obsolete for its original purpose.
At least you're open about being a reactionary, rather than trying to conceal by saying stuff like "I'm just concerned about the right of lesbians to free association!".
No. As the explanatory notes pointed out, and the language did as well, it was far broader than a mere exception to marriage laws, but was for all purposes including equalities law. The Supreme Court’s totally indefensible ignoring of its purpose is made more dishonest each layer that is uncovered.
If you want to repeal the GRA and repeal the existence of molecular biology and the existence of those who medically changed their sexed developments far more than not, that’s an entirely different argument from one that just ignores the existence of a law out of prejudice or convenience
Comments
That's the point.
The point is: if anybody is excluded, under the terms of that EA 2010 it has to be both justified and proportionate.
Yes, that's always be fine.
But it would be inaccurate to call it a men's club.
If the men don't care then t would never be challenged.
If the NHS describes it's ward as female, it cannot place any males there.
The law hasn't changed but it has been clarified.
It shouldn't exist.
#RepealTheGRA
It's one law that was originally brought n because we didn't have same sex marriage.
With the advent of same sex marriage, it is obsolete for its original purpose.