But as the SC observed at para 184 “a certificated sex definition would
exclude trans men who are pregnant (that is, pregnant women living as trans men with a
GRC)” from protection against maternity and pregnancy discrimination.
You won’t get a letter. Not because of your ability to fight back but because saying you think someone is a bully is not defamatory, unlike falsely claiming their employer/a judge found they were. I’m sure you already know this.
I hope the committee, and in particular its chair, will be less hostile and better informed than when they questioned the current EHRC chair.
Here you go - from the EHRC’s press release. They’ve clarified the wording not changed their position. This is not the win the Good Law Project’s claims it is.
Comparing the original to the Guardian version, the subs seem to have done a lot of editing. Noticeably, removing all reference to the fact that Jack happily uses the male loos when he is ‘presenting male’ and that all he was afraid of was smirks.
Yes, I just looked and couldn’t find it in the judgment either. Who is this quote from?
The identity of the claimant, nature of the application, occupancy of the building really aren’t technicalities but you enjoy your tin foil hat if you want.
Just pointing out the facts because conspiracy theories don’t help anyone.
Read my post, the EHRC aren’t the main occupant of the building - they occupy less than 1% of it and their lease ends in under a year.
The Landlord is a separate entity. EHRC occupy 629 sq ft of a 93,000 sq ft building. The rest is let to other businesses, serviced offices & co-working space. The Landlord sought the injunction to prevent future trespass. The court application is here www.tintagelhouseinjunction.com/wp-content/u...
You deleted because that “missed nuance” made the headline and intro defamatory, along with your earlier post sharing it. I’m sure you were also warned that you needed to draw attention to the correction - downplaying the misrepresentation as a nuance nixes the benefit of doing so.
Yes, given how widely this post has been shared and quoted they should really also put up a post drawing attention to the correction.
Ok in that case, I’ll just add that the Guardian headline you mention has now been changed to “EHRC commissioner calls for trans people to accept perceived reduced rights”. Enjoy your day.
Did you find it chilling when Stonewall told women with concerns to “get over it” or trans rights activists told to them to “enjoy their erasure”? Women actually had the rights they were trying to defend. All that is being said here is that trans people will have to accept their legal rights.
The headline here seems defamatory. It’s clear from the full quote used in the article that Reindorf did not say trans people’s rights were being reduced, but that they would perceive they were because they’d been mislead about what their rights were. You should correct it and apologise.
I was going by the replies to the UKCLA posts sharing the articles which showed a marked contrast.
@ukcla.bsky.social has published two pieces on the Supreme Court judgment. Wrigley’s was praised for its “serious academic engagement” even by those who disagreed. Foran’s has been met with a torrent of personal abuse but zero interaction with the merits of his legal arguments. Both sides though.
Some Equality law advice to arts and charity staff signing open letters post For Women Scotland Supreme Court case www.linkedin.com/posts/audrey...
Well done Stonewall, this will show the ever dwindling list of organisations still willing to work with you just what an institutional risk they are taking.
When did we stop asking why? Botched surgeries necessitating revisions yet these women still feel it was worth it. Why aren’t we asking why young woman are so desperate not to be women?
Much excitement in my corner of south London this weekend thanks to the arrival of Waterstones. Found this which I hadn’t heard of before but look forward to reading.
Maybe. No idea whether she is a columnist or not. But by the same token isn’t holding her up for mockery here the same thing?
Maybe. I didn’t know she was a columnist. But by the same token doesn’t your mockery of her just do the same thing?
Not sure a new user not immediately finding people she recognised quickly warrants this kind of flagging for public mockery. I thought this was the type of behaviour we were here to escape.
Big news for menopausal women.
Doesn’t bode well for when I actually start posting.
Yes - all her posts are hidden for me as flagged for “intolerance” (may be a setting I can change but not got that far yet). Plus before having posted anything here I’d been blocked by 100+ accounts, apparently because there’s a mass blocklist of anyone interacting or following Naomi.
Naomi is on the ducking stool here. Her whole account is flagged for “intolerance” and there’s a mass blocklist that seems to add anyone following Goody Cunningham. I’d been blocked by over 100 accounts before I’d even posted anything.
First post here yet I’ve already been blocked by 100+ people. Was it something I didn’t say?
