20000th poster gets a cookie (cookie thread (Part 7)) (Part 9)

General
#15552

trans-exclusionary radical feminist. is what it says on the tin for the most part other than the fact its definitely not feminism

1 Like
#15553

TERF was a pejorative for, well, what it says on the tin. It morphed into a term more generally applied to transphobes.

1 Like
#15554

hi gray

1 Like
#15555

hi jade. how are you

#15556

great question

#15557

how about you

#15558

doing about as good as i can considering the state of things.

1 Like
#15559

yeah

1 Like
#15560

I think I found their official site with the written motive to the decision.

Reasons for the Judgment

Interpretation of the GRA 2004
Section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 [Gender Recognition Act 2004] establishes that trans people with a GRC are to be considered their “acquired” gender (meaning the gender reflected on their GRC) “for all purposes”.
Section 9(3) allows the rule in section 9(1) to be disapplied by a provision in the GRA 2004 or
“any other enactment or any subordinate legislation” [75].
Section 9(3) does not require that legislation expressly disapplies the rule in section 9(1) or that
this disapplication arises by necessary implication [99]-[104]. Section 9(3) will apply where
the terms, context and purpose of the relevant legislation show that it does, because of a clear
incompatibility or because its provisions are made incoherent or unworkable by the application
of the rule in section 9(1) [156].

Interpretation of the EA 2010
As a matter of ordinary language, the provisions relating to sex discrimination can only be
interpreted as referring to biological sex [168]-[172]. For example, the provisions relating to
pregnancy and maternity (sections 13(6), 17 and 18 of the EA) are based on the fact of
pregnancy and giving birth to a child. As a matter of biology, only biological women can
become pregnant. Therefore, these provisions are unworkable unless “man” and “woman” have
a biological meaning [177]-[188].

A certificated sex interpretation would also create two sub-groups within those who share the
protected characteristic of gender reassignment, giving trans people who possess a GRC greater
rights than those who do not. Those seeking to perform their obligations under the EA 2010
would have no obvious means of distinguishing between the two sub-groups, particularly since
they could not ask whether someone had obtained a GRC as that information is private [198]-
[203].

A certificated sex interpretation would also weaken the protections given to those with the
protected characteristic of sexual orientation for example by interfering with their ability to
have lesbian-only spaces and associations [204]-[209].

Additional provisions that require a biological interpretation of “sex” in order to function
coherently include separate spaces and single sex services (including changing rooms, hostels
and medical services) [211]-[221], communal accommodation [222]-[225], and single sex
higher education institutions [226]-[228]. Similar confusion and impracticability arise in the
operation of provisions relating to single sex characteristic associations and charities [229]-
[231], women’s fair participation in sport [232]-[236], the operation of the public sector
equality duty [237]-[244], and the armed forces [245]-[246].

The meaning of the terms “sex”, “man” and
“woman” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex, as any other interpretation would render the
EA 2010 incoherent and impracticable to operate [264].

Protection from Discrimination

This interpretation of the EA 2010 does not remove protection from trans people, with or
without a GRC. Trans people are protected from discrimination on the ground of gender
reassignment. They are also able to invoke the provisions on direct discrimination and
harassment, and indirect discrimination on the basis of sex. In the light of case law interpreting
the relevant provisions, a trans woman can claim sex discrimination because she is perceived
to be a woman. A certificated sex reading is not required to give this protection [248]-[263].

I highlighed some key points in the decision for quick reading.

3 Likes
#15561

I’m still kind of confused over the decision though, there’s like alot of questions floating around

#15562

i mean some of those are fair points tbh

#15563

its just that there are far better solutions

#15564

Chomp why did you do this

5 Likes
#15565

largely by re-writing old legislation that has been written in such a way that it cannot support the (factual) existence of trans people

rather than just covering your ears and going “lalalala i cant hear you” which is what this seems to be

#15566

which

#15567

It’s nice of you to compile and highlight but you need to be very careful when omitting text like this
You can’t just omit text because it includes references to sections and looks wordy :sob: it’s relevant

3 Likes
#15568

Admittedly, I think I kind of twisted their wordings, for some I find kind of vague either because I am ESL or I need more context

3 Likes
#15569

And I’m just illiterate

1 Like
#15570

Oh no totally it’s very clear you aren’t attempting to twist narratives ideologically as if you were a Fox News writer, that’s why I’m assuming you just decided to omit the things you don’t understand/didn’t want to read like wordy sections

3 Likes
#15571

Yeah I think I totally messed up the TLDR, I’ll just delete it