Is this woman a transphobe?

[two sheds]

How many's that now, Border Reiver?

and I'm on a knife edge

 

[A380]

I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. Onto ignore.

I understand now, you are trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records for the quickest time to rejoin U75 and tell all the other posters they are on ignore.

you ‘done’ yet?

 

[Sue]

and I'm on a knife edge

Gutting.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It depends. If a business refused access it is a potential civil matter. If a group or individual actively and directly target the rights of a person with. GRC to access women only spaces it is potentially aggravated harrassment.

Exactly the same as race, gender or sexuality.

Not sure what country you're referring to here. In Canada, the action of the refuge has been judged legal by a court.

Here in the UK, there has been clarification about the way the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Parliament has clarified to make certain exceptions more explicit.

The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Women and Equalities Committee - House of Commons

There's lots to be argued over here, but a lot of what you're saying on this thread simply isn't true. In particular, possession of a GRC isn't the crucial point here. You don't need to have a GRC necessarily to be protected by the Act, but also having one doesn't affect these exemptions.

 

[A380]

Not sure what country you're referring to here. In Canada, the action of the refuge has been judged legal by a court.

Here in the UK, there has been clarification about the way the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Parliament has clarified to make certain exceptions more explicit.



Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Women and Equalities Committee - House of Commons

There's lots to be argued over here, but a lot of what you're saying on this thread simply isn't true. In particular, possession of a GRC isn't the crucial point here. You don't need to have a GRC necessarily to be protected by the Act, but also having one doesn't affect these exemptions.

Careful, you’ll be on their ignore list soon...

 

[Sue]

Are you waiting for the big ignore hammer to fall, littlebabyjesus?

 

[Gromit]

I haven’t read the entire thread.
Just checking back in.

It was established that the woman was a transphobe yes?

I’m worried about whether the OP got their question categorically answered or not.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I haven’t read the entire thread.
Just checking back in.

It was established that the woman was a transphobe yes?

I’m worried about whether the OP got their question categorically answered or not.

Well, yes and no

 

[MickiQ]

I haven’t read the entire thread.
Just checking back in.

It was established that the woman was a transphobe yes?

I’m worried about whether the OP got their question categorically answered or not.

A line has been drawn in the sand those on the one side are adamant she is not, those on the other are adamant she is. This remains a subject where any rational debate is difficult to say the least, way too much emotion involved.

I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. Onto ignore.

I don't believe you are putting anyone on ignore it became obvious a while back that you are more interested in getting a rise out of people than anyything else so ignoring them would be self defeating.

 

[A380]

A line has been drawn in the sand those on the one side are adamant she is not, those on the other are adamant she is. This remains a subject where any rational debate is difficult to say the least, way too much emotion involved.
I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. Onto ignore.

I don't believe you are putting anyone on ignore it became obvious a while back that you are more interested in getting a rise out of people than anyything else so ignoring them would be self defeating.
[/QUOTE]
They have forgotten who they 'have on ignore' and responded to them on other threads - they could at least have a post it note on their lap top to maintain the artifice.

 

[Border Reiver]

Not sure what country you're referring to here. In Canada, the action of the refuge has been judged legal by a court.

Here in the UK, there has been clarification about the way the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Parliament has clarified to make certain exceptions more explicit.



Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Women and Equalities Committee - House of Commons

There's lots to be argued over here, but a lot of what you're saying on this thread simply isn't true. In particular, possession of a GRC isn't the crucial point here. You don't need to have a GRC necessarily to be protected by the Act, but also having one doesn't affect these exemptions.

You need to understand hie "proportionate" is interpreted by the courts. Perhaps you cannorovide done by samples from case law on his this deviates from my view. You know, actual cases where people with GRC have been excluded from a female only area.

 

[Border Reiver]

A line has been drawn in the sand those on the one side are adamant she is not, those on the other are adamant she is. This remains a subject where any rational debate is difficult to say the least, way too much emotion involved.

I don't believe you are putting anyone on ignore it became obvious a while back that you are more interested in getting a rise out of people than anyything else so ignoring them would be self defeating.

I have not responded to anyone on ignore, nor in a single case where the response suggested they had recanted, read their comments. I just ignore posters who use abuse.

 

[Border Reiver]

How many's that now, Border Reiver?

Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.

 

[Orang Utan]

Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.

wally

 

[Sue]

Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.

Or people who challenge your points in ways you don't like, like kabbes, for example. Quite simple.

 

[kabbes]

Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.

I think this means he’s put himself on ignore?

 

[A380]

I have not responded to anyone on ignore, nor in a single case where the response suggested they had recanted, read their comments. I just ignore posters who use abuse.

Oh yes you have...

 

[two sheds]

Oh no he hasn't ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You need to understand hie "proportionate" is interpreted by the courts. Perhaps you cannorovide done by samples from case law on his this deviates from my view. You know, actual cases where people with GRC have been excluded from a female only area.

That parliamentary document states that the absence of case law in this area is precisely why those clarifications were made - to give directions as to how the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Hence them giving theoretical examples.

tbh you don't appear to understand much about anything here. You're wrong about the legal position, you're wrong about what gender dysphoria is, and your category of 'natural' phenomena doesn't work. I'm sure there's other stuff you've been wrong about that I've missed.

 

[Gromit]

Oh no he hasn't ...

He’s behind you!

 

[Border Reiver]

That parliamentary document states that the absence of case law in this area is precisely why those clarifications were made - to give directions as to how the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Hence them giving theoretical examples.

tbh you don't appear to understand much about anything here. You're wrong about the legal position, you're wrong about what gender dysphoria is, and your category of 'natural' phenomena doesn't work. I'm sure there's other stuff you've been wrong about that I've missed.

That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.

 

[A380]

That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and In Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.

No you aren’t.

 

[A380]

Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Fuck this thread off to the shit bin.

 

[kabbes]

That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.

A degree in psychology obtained a very, very, very, very, very, very long time ago, by any chance?

 

[Gromit]

 

[smokedout]

Not sure what country you're referring to here. In Canada, the action of the refuge has been judged legal by a court.

Here in the UK, there has been clarification about the way the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Parliament has clarified to make certain exceptions more explicit.

Parliament has not clarified anything. The link you posted is from a report by the Women and Equalities Commisson. Parliament doesn't just get to rewrite acts on the hoof, the act is as it is written and for the courts to interpret unless new legislation is brought before Parliament. As the Government explained in their response to the WEC report

As set out in response to recommendation 14, the Government is planning to develop and publish non-statutory guidance on how the Equality Act 2010’s single and separate sex service exemptions apply. There are limitations to what could be achieved through statutory guidance as there is no case law in this space that moves beyond interpretation of the original legislation, so it would not be possible to set out ‘rules’ for the application of exemptions: statutory guidance must reflect existing law, it is not a means of establishing new law.

That guidance has not been developed yet and the key words are non-statutory. The act is as it stands, and it does contain guidance in the original explanatory notes about a counselling servce, but not a refuge and even then this would be open to interpretation by the courts - what was the nature of the discrimination, could the service have been delivered differently etc. It is very likely refuges would be covered by the exemption and it would give some protection in court were the EHRC to issue guidance advising this, however they have yet to do so and even when they do the guidance is purely advisory and can be over-ruled by the courts.

There's lots to be argued over here, but a lot of what you're saying on this thread simply isn't true.

Oh the irony.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's not so different from what I said, you know. They're providing guidance in the absence of established case law. My bad for saying 'parliament' there.

 

[smokedout]

That's not so different from what I said, you know. They're providing guidance in the absence of established case law. My bad for saying 'parliament' there.

The WEC can provide as much guidance as they want, it makes no difference to the law, they are a parliamentary committee, they don't write or issue guidance on the law they scrutinise policy and issue recommendations which governments are free to ignore. But they aren't even claiming to provide guidance, they are quoting from the original explanatory notes that were published with the Equality Act. In fact if you read it in context they are asking for guidance, and I quoted the Government's response to that request.

You seem unclear about how parliament and the courts interact to produce law, perhaps you are not best placed to set yourself up as an expert on this subject.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.

You silly plonker