Probably a good idea. Sadly a lot of this thread is just going to be the ongoing attack on trans people in Terf Island media. I wish there were more positive and a wider variety of stories coming out of the US and UK :(
“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands." ~Anthony Bourdain
Tief girl with eartude
The TDM was openly squeeing about the possibility of trans people being stripped of their rights on the front page.
STG, I'm going to start giving people who buy it their change in all 5p's.
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
[never mind, a few more readthroughs got me there. 'The TDM' confused me a bit (The The Daily Mail)]
Edited by ciyinwanderer on Apr 6th 2022 at 8:16:47 AM
“Once you’ve been to Cambodia, you’ll never stop wanting to beat Henry Kissinger to death with your bare hands." ~Anthony Bourdain
AntiSocial with Adam Fleming, on BBC Radio 4.[1]
This week, two sports governing bodies decided that trans women should not compete in women's categories. Other sports announced they would review their policies. There's a row about that, but beneath that is a deeper argument about how the tensions around gender identity are discussed and debated.
Presenter: Adam Fleming Producers: Lucy Proctor & Simon Maybin Researcher: Ellie House Music: Oskar Jones Editor: Emma Rippon
Ministers plan to make single-sex toilets compulsory in all new public buildings.[2]
Edited by TommyR01D on Jul 3rd 2022 at 10:11:45 AM
Tief girl with eartude
"Why is the conversation about trans rights and women's rights so toxic?"
Because the "conversation" was started by people who wanted to poison the well.
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
Figure of Hourai
Amazing how a discussion can be toxic when the entire reason it exists is one side insisting that the other is actually a bunch of sex offenders out to destroy women or the like. Can't imagine why that would be toxic.
Avatar Source
And where one side can only present their piece on it with someone with an opposing view there to shout them down, but people presenting that opposing view don't need such a thing.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Judgement of Maya Forstater -v- CGD Europe, Center for Global Development, Masood Ahmed, heard at the London Central Employment Tribunal.[1]
- 1. The complaints of direct discrimination because of belief are well founded against all Respondents in respect of:
- 1.1 The decision not to offer the Claimant an employment contract.
- 1.2 The decision not to renew the Claimant’s visiting fellowship.
- 2. The other complaints of direct discrimination because of belief are dismissed.
- 3.The complaint of victimisation is well founded against the First and Second Respondents in respect of the removal of the Claimant’s profile from their website.
- 4. The complaint of victimisation in respect of withdrawal of an offer to engage the Claimant as a consultant is dismissed.
- 5. The complaints of harassment and indirect discrimination (sex and belief) are dismissed.
- 6. Remedies for the successful complaints and any issues as to apportionment between the Respondents will be determined at a future hearing.
Judgement of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Higgs v Farmor's School.[2]
Practice and Procedure–application for recusal of lay member –fair hearing –appearance of bias An application for recusal was made on the basis that a lay member of the Employment Appeal Tribunal panel had made a number of public statements on Twitter that expressed firmly held views on issues relevant to the appeal, giving rise to the appearance of bias.
Held: allowing the application
Applying the test of the fair-minded and informed observer (Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 HL), and having regard to the relevant context (which included the nature of the debate relating to the issues raised by the appeal and an assessment of the task the Employment Appeal Tribunal would be required to undertake in determining this matter), there was a real ground for doubt in the lay member’s ability to approach this matter with an impartial and entirely open mind. That being so, the lay member would be recused from hearing this appeal.
Guidance for future cases provided: a lay member should raise any potential issues of this nature with the judge with whom they are sitting on the case in question; the judge would be best able to act as the fair-minded and informed observer, with an understanding of the issues to be determined.
Edited by TommyR01D on Jul 6th 2022 at 5:27:04 AM
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
So...from what I can tell, this means they think there was some discrimination involved in withdrawing the offer to renew the contract, but it had fuck all to do with Forstater's sex and gender.
It looks like the conclusion is like...if someone holds terfy beliefs but doesn't act on them, an employer can't do anything, but while there may have been some discrimination in the choice to withdraw the offer...there's still no grounds to force the employer to well, employ her.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Tief girl with eartude
It's basically an affirmation of the previous ruling; she can hold GC beliefs (in the same way someone can hold other transphobic beliefs, and other bigoted believes like homophobia and racism), but is still liable if she were to act on them. Personally I think the conclusions are a bit meh (if you leave a leaflet trying to suggest trans people are all paedophiles just lying about, it's pretty obvious what you're doing), but hardly surprising.
Unfortunately, I suspect GCs will just read it as "you're allowed to be as transphobic as you like now!", and not everyone is going to be as able to stand up for themselves as Forester's former employers (or be as willing to deal with bigoted employees when they're dragged through this much legal nonsense).
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
This one is from months ago, but you may still find it interesting.
Background
For Women Scotland sought a judicial review of Scottish Government legislation (Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018) which sets out positive action measures aimed at increasing the percentage to 50% of women serving as non-executive members on Scottish public boards. In particular, the organisation challenged the definition of ‘woman’ used in the 2018 Act.
The Equality Act 2010 regulates equality measures in Scotland as a reserved matter. However, the Scottish Parliament has devolved power to legislate for positive action measures around the composition of public boards.
For Women Scotland argued that the definition of woman used in the 2018 legislation did not reflect that used in the 2010 Equality Act and that this alteration went beyond the limit of the Scottish Government’s legislative competence in a reserved matter.
First Instance Ruling
The judge at first instance ruled that the 2018 Scottish legislation did not redefine woman for any purpose other than to include transgender women as another category of people who could benefit from the positive measure.
EU law supported the conclusion that in discrimination matters, transgender people were to be included as being of the sex to which they had reassigned.
She dismissed the petition.
Appeal
For Women Scotland were successful in an appeal against that decision.
An appeal division of the Court of Session ruled that the 2010 Act set out sex and gender reassignment as two separate protected characteristics.
The Equality Act defined sex as relating to women or men where ‘woman’ referred to a female of any age and ‘man’ to a male of any age. Gender reassignment was defined as a person who was proposing to undergo, was undergoing, or who had undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex. The reassignment was the common factor of the protected characteristic, not the sex into which the person reassigned.
In delivering the opinion of the Court, the Lord Justice Clerk, Lady Dorrian, said: “By incorporating those transsexuals living as women into the definition of woman, the 2018 Act conflates and confuses two separate and distinct protected characteristics … It would have been open to the Scottish Parliament to include an equal opportunities objective on public boards aimed at encouraging representation of women. It would have been open to them separately to do so for any other protected characteristic, including that of gender reassignment. That is not what they have done. They have chosen to make a representation objective in relation to women but expanded the definition of women to include only some of those possessing another protected characteristic.”
The Court accepted that, having regard to the general population, it would be reasonable to set an objective that 50% of non-executive, public board members should be women. However, a reasonable percentage for an objective in relation to other protected characteristics would depend on various factors and be unlikely to result in a figure of 50%.
Lady Dorrian said: “The fact that an appropriate percentage for a representation objective in relation to one protected characteristic may not be proportionate and appropriate to another characteristic highlights why it is important to apply an individual approach to the characteristics and to focus in each case on those who share a relevant protected characteristic. ... the definition of woman adopted in the 2018 legislation includes those with the protected sex characteristic of women, but only some of those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.”
The Court made clear that the case had been about interpreting the law in relation to the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and had not been about transgender rights which was a separate policy issue entirely.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
I am getting really sick of the terfs deliberately taking the dumbest possible interpretations of everything to get their way.
I am increasingly seeing "I am not a person, I am a woman!" around. There's also things like how they are seemingly incapable of realizing their favourite definition ("Woman: Adult human female") doesn't actually apply to children.
And the British terfs are perfectly willing to make themselves look entirely insane and deranged in an argument and they seem to have absolutely no clue that they just said something in the vicinity of "women are inherently stupid" or whatever.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Yeah, they're very big on declaring women to not be people in order to own the transes (because using "pregnant people" to acknowledge that some transmen and plenty of Non-binary people can get pregnant too is "erasing women" somehow).
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
"We insist on defining women entirely by their ability to get pregnant and at every turn we will insist that all women are inherently inferior to all men and refuse to call women 'people'. We are the feminists defending the stupid, weak and feeble women only good for reproduction!"
Edited by Zendervai on Jul 6th 2022 at 9:49:37 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.
Tief girl with eartude
And as usual, the papers are trying to make it sound like it's being closed down full stop (and trans minors have no support anymore). -.-
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
Tief girl with eartude
They really are going all in on transphobia, huh?
TV Tropes's No. 1 bread themed lesbian. she/her, fae/faer
Following the resignation of Susie Green as CEO, the Charity Commission has launched a statutory inquiry into Mermaids.[1]
Edited by TommyR01D on Dec 3rd 2022 at 8:28:14 AM
Interesting that the LGB Alliance is not subjected to the same degree of scrutiny.
"Yup. That tasted purple."
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
They're getting a little scrutiny now, given that it's come to the attention of some of the people who monitor charities that the LGB Alliance doesn't appear to actually do anything. Like at all. They have no registered events or actions.
But yeah, it's really gross how they keep getting a pass and the one that actually does stuff to help people is constantly investigated.
Not Three Laws compliant.
Guess I might as well throw in Abigail Thorne’s video where she talks about how NHS handles trans healthcare. The short answer is: badly. And lack of funding is far from the only cause.
One problem according to her being the very fact that there are separate "gender identity clinics" trans people have to go to before they can even hope to get treatment − clinics where they can wait for years to get an appointment that’s just the first of the thousand hoops they have to jump through.
Visiting from the Hoag Galaxy
IIRC, someone did the math and realized these clinics appear to be seeing someone once every three days, at best, and some of them appear to only schedule once a week or once a month, but they schedule everyone on that one day to make it look really busy.
But they sometimes fuck up and accidentally schedule someone on a different day. The patient will get seen, but they'll have a very long wait in an entirely empty waiting room.
Edited by Zendervai on Dec 3rd 2022 at 6:10:29 AM
Not Three Laws compliant.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I think the point of the previous post is the court case Mermaids brought against the LGBA to challenge their charity status (which is awarded by the Charity Commission). It's that case that has triggered the Charity Commission's investigation of Mermaid's practices... at the same time it's defending its allocation of charity status to LGBA in court. It's not exactly a neutral arbiter right now, and that's a problem.
The situation is actually a bit unprecedented.
If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.
I noticed that a disproportionate share of the LGBT Rights Worldwide thread
was dedicated to talking about British politics, and also that a disproportionate share of the British Politics thread
was taken up by discussion about LGBT rights. This sometimes results in the same posters having the same conversation across both threads simultaneously, which gets very confusing. I have therefore taken the bold step of creating this dedicated thread so that a more coherent conversation can be maintained.
For those wondering, this picks up from comment 45017
in the British Politics thread and from comment 3357
in the LGBT Rights one.