Laws are really created around the paths of least friction in society. The moment other considerations are brought into it, there is always trouble. What we have these days is an abundance of considerations created by all sorts of conflicting pressure groups. It never works out well

I understand that but it would be interesting to know specifically which safeguarding issues you think the equal rights (ie: to exist alongside straight people) of LGBT people have caused?

And equally which academic evidence is being ended in lieu of demands (and which demands). Without specifics I can’t really give any truthful reply in agreement or otherwise.

I can make assumptions of what I think you mean based on previous discourse in this thread but that isn’t helpful

They are part and parcel of the same issue - I know (not know of, personally know) some highly regarded academics who have been unable to write, or at the very least unable to openly publish, sociology and research papers on gender-related issues due to being harassed, doxxed and threatened for any hint of engaging in good faith gender study, rather than default gender acceptance.

If the research is vetoed before it can even begin and yet space-access is demanded, then safeguarding concerns can't even begin to be addressed. The argument is then that "there is no evidence of..." which is an entirely meaningless statement when people trying to discover the evidence either way are doxxed and threatened into submission before they can complete the research. That is, of course, the intention.

For the most part there are a few overzealous organisations that were originally at the root of it all. Stonewall, Mermaids, et al. But it quickly became the accepted rhetoric, and the eventual (inevitable) backlash has been catastrophic for the entire LGBT community.

I should've clarified about meaning adult men are less likely to be sexually assaulted by women.

Granted you've definitely made an interesting point that I know that even South Park covered a few Seasons ago about female Teachers and Paedophilia.

And from my personal point of view I'm not personally that invested either way about if Transwomen use the women's bathroom or not.

I am personally happy that some Sports have tried to separate Transwomen from competing in women's Sports, because I do feel like there is a biological advantage there, and that women are having opportunities taken away from them, which I think is especially bad in cases where the female version of the Sport has only just started becoming more mainstream.

I personally in an ideal world would like to see Transwomen versions of these Sports, so that they can also compete in a fair competition with less judgment being flung their way.

Fair point.

Gav is not wrong.:laugh:

Yuck!D:

I remember going into a men's Bathroom in Burger King once, and there was no Toilet roll in any of the cubicles.:umm2:

And yes I checked them all as nobody else was in there at the time.

I was only about 10 years old at the time, mortifying doesn't even begin to describe it.

Scottish Football Association set to ban "transgender women" competing in
women's football

The move comes after the UK Supreme Court announced that the Equality Act's
definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It means that from next season, only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches in the women's game in Scotland. (madness it ever was tbh)

The BBC reports that the new policy will apply to all competitive football in
Scotland, including the grassroots game from under-13s and over.

Interesting

Wasn’t Chelsea’s star striker a bloke ?

I saw her/him/them racing through the opposition defence a few weeks ago with players bouncing off her /him left , right and centre backs !

They looked around 6’ and walked like a docker https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...d7a069c907.jpg

my cousin was over 6ft tall and she used to arm wrestle with men down the pub. Women come in all shapes and sizes, just like men do

Currently the English FA do allow male sex trangender women to play against women but Id imagine this will now change

contracts etc will be allowed to expire so i wouldn't expect immediate changes

The bathroom law...

Trans women banned by the FA from the women's game from 1st May. Finally, common sense prevails.

This is a good article

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...A8rxPFvTVH6JhA

Stonewall’s policy of ‘no debate’ on trans rights was a mistake
The LGBTQ+ rights charity’s former head Ben Summerskill and the parent of a trans-identifying young person respond to coverage of the recent supreme court ruling

Both Gaby Hinsliff, in her typically thoughtful piece (If Britain is now resetting the clock on trans rights, where will that leave us?, 18 April), and your correspondent who says “All sensible, two-way discussion of this topic has been prevented” (Letters, 22 April) highlight the risks that both trans people and many other individuals and organisations face from continuing uncertainty over an important area of public policy.

Sadly, a significant contribution to the prevention of sensible, two-way discussion of this sensitive issue was Stonewall’s 2015 decision to adopt an approach of “no debate” – online, on public platforms and in the broadcast media. This has now had huge reputational and financial consequences for the charity, where dozens of staff have since faced redundancy.

A core message for charities and all advocates for social justice from this regrettable situation might be that campaigning by diktat rather than persuasion is very rarely successful. Winning folk over to your position while recognising and addressing their anxieties, while very hard work, is usually a better way of securing legislative and social progress that can be embedded and lasts. If you decline even to enter a debate, you rarely win it.
Ben Summerskill
Chief executive, Stonewall, 2003-14

I am the parent of a trans-identified young person who has nuanced views of the debate on sex and gender (Editorial, 23 April). The reason the supreme court ruling feels like such a threat to the trans community is because for the last decade activists have misled them about the existing law, staked everything on the complete erasure of sex as a meaningful category in society, and framed any dissent as bigotry, transphobia or worse.

It has been catastrophic for a generation of trans-identified youth to have been misled into thinking that their wellbeing is dependent on everyone in society colluding in a pretence that biological sex can simply be overridden by gender identity, irrespective of context. The consequences are all too apparent in the distressed response to what is a compassionate legal ruling that balances the rights of trans people (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) while identifying the specific contexts where sex will be relevant too.

On SkyNewsHD they said it comes in on June 1st


It's on their ticker


They are only following the Judge.

So it had to be done

That's what I've been saying for years and one of the most frustrating parts of the whole debate - so often met with people saying "but there's not evidence that..." when there has been a clear, hard-line and often very aggressive long campaign to stop any research or study being done that would yield evidence either way.

I've even always said my stance on the whole thing could change IF anyone could provide robust evidence for why decisions were being made that seemed accurate and reasonable ... but it's impossible to get to the truth when you have people attacking anyone who dares to look for it.

Yep. It seems like a lot of common sense was ignored and peoples concerns were dismissed as "phobic" It isn't a good strategy to just shut people down by trying to shame or threaten them, that will only work for so long before people say no

Yes plus a culture of "any request for compromise = bad and the enemy" and the inevitable outcome of that was not a successful forcing of no compromise... it was an increasing tendency for people to not bother trying to find one.

Not to mention the gas-lighting which there was A LOT of

Labour has postponed its women’s conference because of the risk of protests and legal challenge following the Supreme Court ruling on gender.

The party’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) voted on Tuesday to postpone the event, which was due to take place in September, pending a review.

A leaked advice paper had recommended postponing it because the “only legally defensible alternative” would be to restrict attendance to biological women.

The NEC also decided to extend the terms of those serving on the National Labour Women’s Committee until a conference takes place and elections can be held.

A Labour Party spokesperson said the party must make sure all its procedures “comply with the Supreme Court’s clear ruling” and that it would make any changes required with “sensitivity and care”

The Supreme Court ruled in April that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010 Equality Act “refer to a biological woman and biological sex”.

The party will interpret measures relating to women on the basis of biological sex at birth, it is understood.

Labour had previously operated its “positive action” measures on the basis of self-identification, allowing transgender women to take part.

A leaked advice paper produced for the NEC meeting recommended postponing the women’s conference on September 27 because “there is a significant risk of legal challenge to the event as it currently operates” and “there may be protests, direct action and heightened security risks” if it goes ahead.

That could carry a “political risk” of overshadowing the party’s showcase autumn conference which begins the following day.

The recommendation in the paper was to postpone the women’s conference pending a wider review of positive action measures.

The paper also says the party should issue guidance to make clear that all-women shortlists can only apply to “applicants who were biologically female at birth”.

Labour did not use all-women shortlists at the last general election.

A Labour Party spokesperson said: “Like all other organisations, the Labour Party must ensure all party procedures comply with the Supreme Court’s clear ruling.


“Labour is clear that everyone in our society deserves to be treated with dignity and respect.

“The party will work closely with individuals and local parties to implement the necessary changes with sensitivity and care.”

It is understood Labour will respect the Supreme Court judgment and comply with statutory guidance when it is published.


The Independent

:joker:

Just cancel the conference, its just wimmin innit

Apparently in the UK there are 30 Transwomen that play in the women's Football pyramid, and they're all amateur players.

So I don't think that Chelsea player is Transgender.

Shop's can ask what sex someone is, before going to try on clothes
 

In todays Daily Telegraph.


[Shops and leisure centres can question
transgender people about their
biological sex before letting them
use changing rooms, the equalities
watchdog has said.
Those who appear to be lying can legally
be refused entry as long as they are not
asked in a rude or offensive manner,
according to updated guidance from
the Equality and
Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Gyms and hospitals could legally ask
people to provide birth certificates
or passports to prove their biological sex.

The watchdog said trans people could
legally be shut out of anywhere where
women were likely to be in a state of undress.

Last month a Cabinet minister insisted
there would be no “toilet police”
stopping trans women from using
women’s lavatories.

Pat McFadden, the Cabinet Office minister,
said the “logical consequence”
of the Supreme Court ruling was that
everyone should use the facilities
of their biological gender.]


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...hanging-rooms/

Good

It is the law Arista