Fundraising for a very worthy cause, in aid of Nordic Model Now
www.eventbrite.com/e/fundraisin...
13.05.2025 06:54
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
Fundraising for a very worthy cause, in aid of Nordic Model Now
www.eventbrite.com/e/fundraisin...
FT scoop
UK & US set to sign long-awaited trade deal this week
www.ft.com/content/ca38...
Here’s a summary of the judgment as it may be a little difficult to understand:
supremecourt.uk/cases/press-...
Please go back and read the judgement.
supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc...
You can misrepresent the SC decision as much as you wish but it won’t change the fact that the PC of sex in the 2010 EA is biological.
Energy would be better spent on providing safety and security for trans-identifying people not encouraging men to breach the law.
You’ve apparently misunderstood the decision.
If a service is single sex then it is legal to exclude the basis of sex.
That would be up to the Scottish Goverment and they’ve accepted the ruling.
Ah, so presenting evidence is now gish galloping?
A bold position but not one that works in court.
I’m sure there are plenty of lawyers with eyes on billable hours who would relish your prospect.
The movement of women campaigning for their rights is not a hate movement.
The one campaigning with these posters might beg to differ, Ofc:
Same could apply to trans activists tbf, who wouldn’t consider this hateful:
I’m a small fish here, but those with big platforms need to speak up. A “far-right expert” with 11.8k followers likens the UK to Weimar Germany and calls anyone who defines womanhood on the basis of biological sex a "transphobe". This isn’t analysis—it’s unhinged.
The SC seemed to think so.
The GRA is one thing, the protected characteristic of GR in the 2010 EA is another.
But respecting the PC of GR cannot come at the cost of negating the PC of sex.
We’ve seen what that does from prisons to rape crisis centres, to female sports and women-only awards
And given the SC ruling, the CoP are now able to be clarified further.
Sorry, this is not a question of being ‘hateful’, as you put it.
It’s a question of facts, and the fact remains that men, with or without a gender recognition certificate, are men.
There is no hatred towards men but important factual distinctions that the SC justices recognise.
…as opposed to those who were telling 51% of the population that their spaces and legal rights didn’t matter?
What’s the word for someone who thinks women - including trans-identifying women - are lesser beings than men?
…which could be legal.
As the EHRC puts it:
“Sometimes indirect gender reassignment discrimination can be permitted if the organisation or employer is able to show that there is a good reason for the discrimination.”
But this should be tested in court amid the strains on the legal system.
The best solution for a very tiny, tiny minority of people is unisex spaces which resolve the issue. This was a solution posited by women’s rights activists but gender identity activists disagreed.
If they had that cohort’s best interests at heart, this is what they should campaign for.
Unless it’s a service or a place of employment, which would require separate sex facilities as per 1992 workplace regulations.
Unfortunately Lord Sumption also failed to mention that it could amount to indirect sex discrimination.
It’s a risky *may* that employers would be keen to avoid.
She can use the female loo or, if her appearance is so altered that she convincingly appears male, then she can use the men’s facilities.
The Supreme Court judgement explains this:
This is both hyperbolic and incoherent Owen.
Trans-identifying people are not being driven out of society and their rights are rightly protected, like anyone else with a particular belief system not grounded in material reality.
It makes perfect sense.
Transwomen - aka men - are not women.
The PM has simple acknowledged what humanity has known for tens of thousands of years.
Progress.
Please read the Cass review to avoid such an unnecessary scenario.
This isn’t the convincing argument you think it is.
Will add it to the list of similarly incoherent responses I’ve received.
Thank you. 🙏
No contradiction at all… Just like babies can be born with any out of the ordinary development issue, missing limbs etc.
glad you’re understanding the basic concepts now.
Go well and good luck with everything 👍
What do people with DSDs have to do with transgender issues?
And please don’t say that sex is spectrum because that’s pseudoscience and the greater majority of trans-identifying people don’t have them
They’re women with Swyer Syndrome with female reproductive structures but usually lacking ovaries.
They do not constitute a separate sex.
What they do have is a rare difference of sex development.
You, apparently, weren’t aware that sex is set at fertilisation.
But don’t let 6 million years of evidence put you off searching for an answer.
