[davidjay]

I wonder if she feels the same about International Women's Day.

[Andy McDandy]

I'm putting her firmly in the "just pull yourself up by the bootstraps/give as good as you got - that's what I did" camp.

[Bones McCoy]

How dare those Asians celebrate Buddha's birthday today.
Won't anybody think of the non-Buddhists.

How dare Jimmy celebrate his birthday today.
What about the people born on the other 365 available days.


See how absurd this all sounds.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Obnoxious old bat. Asexuals deserve their day as it’s rarely discussed or understood and no one talks about it if they are. Morrissey I think is and first heard it mentioned in relation to Ted Heath.

Heath's asexuality led him to being maligned as a paedo. A greater aware of asexuality might have prevented some of this.

[Abernathy]

The ruling by the Supreme Court this morning on the legal definitions of male and female in the context of the Equality Act 2010 and to a secondary extent, the Gender Recognition Act 2018 has been somewhat negligently and irresponsibly reported on, by the BBC as well as other news organisations.

The context of the judgement was very specifically that of the Equality Act 2010, and how that act defines male and female. Part of the judgement, which can be read here : https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2 ... c48cee.pdf observes that interpreting that act as defining sex as certificated gender rather than biological sex as determined at birth would render the act (the EA 2010) “incoherent”. That seems to me to make perfectly logical sense. The judgement also observes that trans women and trans men with a gender recognition certificate are already recognised as a part of a group with a “protected characteristic” as defined by the act.

The judgement has been welcomed by the government, the EHRC, and erm, Kemi Badenoch. But I think it would be wrong to characterise this judgement as a setback for trans rights. It is nothing of the kind.
And for those insisting that this is another instance of Labour indulging “transphobia” (doubtless “Nev the Sweeper” will be along shortly), give your heads a wobble.

[Tubby Isaacs]

[The Weeping Angel]

I see Jolyon's having a normal one.

[Tubby Isaacs]

This is completely wrong. It only talked about the meaning of one Act.

[Crabcakes]

My take is this: the Supreme Court has shown that the laws, as they currently are, are inadequate, because this is the only way they can ultimately be interpreted consistently - and for too long people have been hoping that this will all go away and they won’t have to sort it out/not bothered to sort it out because they don’t care.

It is now not going to go away, it will have to be sorted out, and eventually we’ll (I hope) end up with better laws that are fair and respect all. And at the end of that process I suspect some people - such as a certain children’s author/ghoul - will be screaming bloody murder because this is already the result they wanted regardless of the law it is based on being no longer fit for purpose. Though I’m sure they’re now delighted anyone who doesn’t pass (or even doesn’t pass their standard, regardless of if they’re even trans) can be legally harassed out of such hallowed places as the lavs in Tesco, once a fully transitioned female to male person turns up in a women’s bathroom because it is the only facility they are now legally allowed to use, suddenly they’ll not be as happy.

[kreuzberger]

Bullseye! This is not a "new" law, rather a ruling that the old ones are a dog's breakfast.

That will become clear when proof is required to enter single-sex spaces, and things will get really nasty when they find out that not all cis-women look like Lady-fucking-Di and some trans men can out-butch Geoff Capes. Will there be chopper-checkers in all bogs and operatives on (gloved) hand who will need to be convinced that the patron has owned that vulva all her life?

[Tubby Isaacs]

See whether we get more of this. My guess is that it'll be more trouble than it's worth, hope so.

[Crabcakes]

That will become clear when proof is required to enter single-sex spaces, and things will get really nasty when they find out that not all cis-women look like Lady-fucking-Di and some trans men can out-butch Geoff Capes. Will there be chopper-checkers in all bogs and operatives on (gloved) hand who will need to be convinced that the patron has owned that vulva all her life?

Very much this. The people delighted with their win didn’t like the grey area style law, and demanded it be black and white.

It is now black and white, and I strongly suspect they are not going to like this either as soon as the ramifications become clear (hopefully with a good dose of malicious compliance). Because a lot of people don’t actually want clarity of law, they simply want anyone who is trans to go away and not have access to *any* space.

And while sensible people can get on with overhauling the laws, it’ll be interesting to see who supports this and who simply pivots to demanding ever more draconian and paranoid checks.

[The Weeping Angel]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ampaigners

So, after all that, it turns out that under the Equality Act, a woman is an adult human female. A man is an adult human male.

The unanimous UK supreme court ruling delivered on Wednesday is a big step towards clearing up the almighty mess created by politicians in Scotland, who got so carried away with promoting transgender rights that they decided transgender women ought to be eligible for seats on public boards on preferential terms that are for women.

This argument was taken apart in a judgment that was as far as possible from the fudge predicted by some. The judges ruled in favour of For Women Scotland, the feminist voluntary organisation that brought the case, that the protected characteristic of “sex” and the terms “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act refer to biology, not gender identity. A gender recognition certification (which formally acknowledges a person’s transition) does not alter their sex in this piece of legislation.

[Abernathy]

Tangential observation, here : How much of this moral panic is down to uptight, possibly outdated, British attitudes to public lavvies ? The rigid insistence on the “Gents” and the “Ladies “ ?

I’ve been in public lavs in France, Spain and other countries that were inhabited permanently by female attendants, or with female cleaners happily mopping and cleaning their way around men who are carrying on doing their business at the urinal without batting an eyelid. Similarly, I’ve been in gents’s bogs at very busy concerts or festivals where women, reluctant to wait in very long queues for the ladies with bursting bladders, have pragmatically sought out a free cubicle in the gents, again making their way past men happily carrying on pissing, willies out. I’ve had a piss in the fantastically elaborately decorated lavvies of the Philharmonic pub in Liverpool, where it’s a commonplace for curious customers, male and female, to pop in just to admire the porcelain and even take photographs. Again, carry on pissing.

Tangential, as I say, but I can’t help thinking a more pragmatic attitude generally might not be a bad thing in reducing the pearl-clutching conniptions that characterise much of the fretting about protected single sex spaces.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Or, in the section hommes, where a mother comes in with toddly son to have a petit poopoo.

[Crabcakes]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ampaigners

... The judges ruled in favour of For Women Scotland, the feminist voluntary organisation that brought the case, that the protected characteristic of “sex” and the terms “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act refer to biology, not gender identity. A gender recognition certification (which formally acknowledges a person’s transition) does not alter their sex in this piece of legislation.

And this is exactly why the Supreme Court ruling will have to lead to better laws rather than this ruling being the end of it. Because biology being a neat binary is a vast oversimplification and doesn’t hold. Where do intersex people fit? Where do people with chromosomal differences fit? Because if you’re going to say “it’s whatever is on their birth certificate”, all you’re saying is one type of certificate is OK but another isn’t. Worse still, you’re saying that a certificate that may have no bearing on how the person presents or what is or isn’t in their pants is fine, but another that specifically recognises who they are now and how they present isn’t. And if it’s not based on that, then what is it on and how do you check? If it’s just physical biology where do people who have had an hysterectomy fit, or people who have had testicles removed? Because if it’s not 100% complete then I’ll need a minimum list of physical features. And what if someone takes it on themselves to police this if they think someone is where they shouldn’t be but is mistaken? Do you fancy taking on that case or offering e.g. legal insurance for a mall with male and female toilets?

Granted I’m no lawyer, but I believe in court terms that’s what is known as “An absolute fucking minefield”.

I think there’s going to be an awful lot of people who very shortly will be enjoying an unexpected aerial view courtesy of their recently detonated petard.

[The Weeping Angel]

Of course these matters need ironing out. Perhaps it's worth bearing in mind what Harriet Harman has to say on this ruling.

[Abernathy]

I’m a simple soul. Does it boil down to any person that has acquired a gender recognition certificate for a given gender having the absolute right to be treated in precisely every way the same as a person identified as that biological sex at birth, including within the parameters of the EA 2010?

If so, in terms simply of the principles of human equality, I can’t really mount a strong argument against that, save to observe that biological sex and gender(acquired or otherwise) are two completely different (and arguably irreconcilable) things. How that gets resolved, and I think it will have to be, is the really interesting question. I do think that the judgement’s observation that transgender people already have protections and rights as a group with a defined protected characteristic under the EA 2010 goes some way to addressing the grievance that the Supreme Court judgement amounts to institutionalised transphobia (it does not, in my view). I also agree that to interpret the EA 2010 in those terms would render it incoherent.

Perhaps Badenoch is correct to say that the EA 2010 will need to be re-visited, and possibly amended.

[kreuzberger]

Of course these matters need ironing out.

Matters, mere "matters"? Ironing out? Ironing fucking out?

You lot got what you wanted, so please try to have the stones to acknowledge the unfolding clusterfuck which blinded you with your double-dip intellect blockers of wilful ignorance and pure hatred.

[Crabcakes]

Abers: It’s essentially that gender recognition certificates are now meaningless - you can transition entirely, be post-op, have the genitalia of the gender you now present as, and pass 100% of the time, and it counts for nothing. The ONLY thing that counts now is what you were born as biologically (issues with that notwithstanding). If you are a trans man, you must legally be on a women’s ward if they are designated single sex. If you are a trans women and raped, you cannot access women’s services if they are designated single sex. And so on, into the imminent clusterfuck of trans women being attacked in the male spaces they are forced into and trans men being labelled as predators by women in the female spaces they are forced into.