[Cherie]

Nicola Sturgeon has argued the law on the definition of a woman may need to be changed to accommodate trans people after complaining that a Supreme Court ruling had been “massively over-interpreted”.

The former first minister did not dispute that the court was correct that the definition of woman in the Equality Act 2010 was based on biological sex.

Nicola Sturgeon has argued the law on the definition of a woman may need to be changed to accommodate trans people after complaining that a Supreme Court ruling had been “massively over-interpreted”.

The former first minister did not dispute that the court was correct that the definition of woman in the Equality Act 2010 was based on biological sex.

But she argued that this could be changed to give trans people access to female-only areas as it was for politicians “to decide what the law should be or has to be.”

She said the “law has to change” if trans people’s lives become “almost impossible” and cited comments from Baroness Hale, the first female president of the Supreme Court.

Lady Hale said last week that “there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender neutral loos” and Ms Sturgeon argued that this showed that the ruling had been “massively over-interpreted.”

The former SNP leader made the comments this weekend at the How the Light Gets In festival in Hay-on-Wye, Wales, adding that she had received “more misogynistic abuse as a result of this issue than any other”.

Ms Sturgeon said this was “ironic” but pledged to “always” be an ally to trans people “no matter how difficult that might be.”

But For Women Scotland (FWS), the feminist group that won the Supreme Court case against the SNP government, said the real misreading of the law had come from “trans activists who have spun the most outrageous interpretations.”

Ms Sturgeon’s government tried the Gender Recognition Reform (GRR) Bill, which would have allowed biological men to change legal gender by simply signing a declaration.

The legislation was passed at Holyrood but vetoed by the UK Government over concerns it undermined women’s safe spaces.

But it has emerged that swathes of Scotland’s public sector adopted self-ID all the same, allowing trans people access to female toilets and changing rooms.

Experts have warned these practices will have to be scrapped following the Supreme Court’s ruling in April that the definition of a woman is based on biological sex, and does not include trans women.


The brass neck of this woman who is basically a thief, defies belief

[Vicky.]

there’s nothing in that judgment that says that you can’t have gender neutral loos”

No there isn't, this can be done. What can't be done is it being labelled for women while being mixed sex. Places can chose to have 'gender neutral' if they like

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

No there isn't, this can be done. What can't be done is it being labelled for women while being mixed sex. Places can chose to have 'gender neutral' if they like

The fixation on toilets is pretty ridiculous and designed to demean

Its all about bathrooms they cry when it really isn't

[Vicky.]

I agree, making it all about toilets is ridiculous

[BBXX]

It’s probably because it will affect them most frequently. Not many people are joining professional sports teams or seeking help refuge. Public loos are used often by almost everyone.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

It’s probably because it will affect them most frequently. Not many people are joining professional sports teams or seeking help refuge. Public loos are used often by almost everyone.

There was a lot of sports objections

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by BBXX

It’s probably because it will affect them most frequently. Not many people are joining professional sports teams or seeking help refuge. Public loos are used often by almost everyone.

Alot of transwomen have already said they will ignore the new law and continue to use the ladies....its not the big deal that is being made out, employment, changing rooms, sports, refuges, swimming pools....no mention

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Cherie

The fixation on toilets is pretty ridiculous and designed to demean

Its all about bathrooms they cry when it really isn't

To be fair, if one concedes on bathroom spaces, they pretty much have to concede on most—if not all—others... because it's the most private area where most of us are going to share a space as the same sex. Locker rooms I would put into the same category of arguments.

It would introduce a lot of awkwardness when it comes to areas of social life where maybe an organization or institutions would like to allow transwomen... for example, girls camp... little known fact, but in some areas schools send their kids off for about a week in 5th grade... but imagine they can't share bedroom/bathroom spaces where almost all the female social skills and experiences really solidify at that age. Maybe they can't due to the potential of violating the larger law. I can see where there is less room for compromise without a clearer picture of where integration is encouraged and where lines are best drawn...

So I think legislation could and should strive to go further to outline exactly how we intend to integrate trans-folk into an increasingly complex society instead of walking around it and allowing for this weird unhappy middle where no one has any really clue where it falls... that will cause a lot of problems down the line and it's causing problems now, imo.

[arista]

Speaking On BBCnewsHD to Laura
says she will not return to the UK.


As it's not safe if she has to go into a men's loo.

She fears someone will Die


A Former Judge. (Dr. Victoria McCloud)

A Special One-On-One Newscast

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qw2149yelo

[Zizu]

Yawn


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kate!]

Dear God!

[arista]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episod...0f2ky/newscast

Not Yet on Video

It is in on Audio Only.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0lh0c9r

[Crimson Dynamo]

Bye then luv

[Swan]

Will she go to a nice safe Islamic country, or Devil Trump's America?

[arista]

She/He
is helping others leave the UK.

She stated if she went into a pub,
in a men's loo,
she said she could be killed
or raped.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Swan

Will she go to a nice safe Islamic country, or Devil Trump's America?

EU.

[Swan]

Originally Posted by arista

EU.

Poland maybe?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Swan

Poland maybe?

For security reasons, she would not say

[Cherie]

Hungary Russia America the worlds her Oyster

[Swan]

Asia too

[Swan]

Oh, and Africa

[Swan]

Ireland it is then

[Crimson Dynamo]

So many options

[Cherie]

The Middle East ...for the Sun

[Cherie]

Transgender people must acknowledge a “period of correction” of rights after the supreme court decision on gender because they “have been lied to over many years” about what their rights actually were, one of the commissioners drawing up the official post-ruling guidance has said.

Speaking at a debate about the repercussions of April’s ruling that “woman” in the Equality Act refers only to a biological woman, Akua Reindorf said trans people had been misled about their rights and there “has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights”.

Reindorf, a barrister who is one of eight commissioners at the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), who was speaking in a personal capacity, said she believes the fault lay with trans lobbyists.

However, the human rights campaign groups Liberty and Amnesty called on the EHRC to make sure the rights of trans people were properly considered when it draws up guidance for public bodies on how to implement the changed legal landscape.

A director of the trans campaign group TransActual said Reindorf’s remarks were profoundly unhelpful.

Speaking at the event, organised by the London School of Economics law school, Reindorf argued that the impact of the ruling was very clear, condemning what she called “this huge farce with organisations up and down the country wringing their hands and creating working groups and so on, and people in society worrying that they will have nowhere to go to the toilet”.

Asked by an audience member about worries the ruling could reduce the rights of trans people, another panellist, the barrister Naomi Cunningham, said trans people “will have to give way”, adding: “It can’t be helped, I’m afraid.”

Reindorf, speaking next, agreed: “Unfortunately, young people and trans people have been lied to over many years about what their rights are. It’s like Naomi said – I just can’t say it in a more diplomatic way than that. They have been lied to, and there has to be a period of correction, because other people have rights.”

Reindorf said her comments reflected the fact that before the ruling, the law had been commonly misunderstood because pressure groups argued that trans people who self-identified should be treated as their identified sex, when this was in fact just the case for people with a gender recognition certificate (GRC).


The supreme court decided that this mix of different rights made the Equality Act unworkable, said Reindorf, speaking in a personal capacity. She called this “the catalyst for many to catch up, belatedly, with the fact that the law never permitted self-ID in the first place”.

“The fact is that, until now, trans people without GRCs were being grievously misled about their legal rights,” she said. “The correction of self-ID policies and practices will inevitably feel like a loss of rights for trans people. This unfortunate position is overwhelmingly a product of the misinformation which was systematically disseminated over a long period by lobby groups and activists.”

In April, the EHRC released interim, non-statutory advice about how to interpret the ruling, which set out that transgender people should not be allowed to use toilets of the gender they live as, and that in some cases they cannot use toilets of their birth sex. A number of critics have called the advice oversimplistic.

Chiara Capraro, head of gender justice at Amnesty International UK, said: “The EHRC has the duty to uphold the rights of everyone, including all with protected characteristics. We are concerned that it is failing to do so and is unhelpfully pitting the rights of women and trans people against each other.”

Akiko Hart, Liberty’s director, said: “Any updated guidance from the EHRC must respect and uphold the rights of everyone in society. The supreme court’s judgment was very narrow, and there are a lot of very legitimate questions about how it’s implemented that must be carefully considered.”

The Guardian