I bet none of them have spent the time considering the implications of the adoption of gender ideology on women & children's human rights that @jk_rowling has
Yesterday a young staff member of @RFKHumanRights was on here saying how JKR's statements "go against everything we stand for as an organisation, saying how it was "the youth" that had brought it up and that the board had been slow to move.
We got into conversation when I asked for their reasoning about whether there was any legitimate conflict of rights.
I got back the 13 word mantra "Trans women are women etc.. ....analysis done!"
He also called me a TERF and told me to "sit down dear"
(He later privately apologised for "TERF" after I explained that it is a slur associated with threats of violence against women)
We talked, and he said such things as "sex is assigned at birth" and "gender is a social construct"
I've blanked his name out because he has put his account on private, and because this isn't really about this one young staff member's lack of argument.
It is about the organisation that says #speaktruthtopower condemning JKR for speaking up for women's rights.
Kerry Kennedy's statement suggests that the senior leadership and trustees @RFKHumanRights have not engaged with the issues but have been strong armed into a position.
I bet most of the people on the board are in some agreement with JKR's nuanced and compassionate view about sex and gender identity.
Serious people, serious organisations need to step up, do their job, make space for serious debate.
It says women only, which means no men.
It is lawful because the situation meets one or more of the “gateway conditions” for a lawful single sex service in the EqA, and it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Who does the sign discriminate against?
Men directly.
What all of them?
Yes, because they are all excluded by the rule. Even the femmes, the crossdressers, the transwomen, the non-binaries and the gender fluids.
Here we are at @LSELaw for a legal panel discussion on the FWS case. Video will be available later.
Naomi Cunningham says the ruling changes very little .. and it changes everything.
Under the old understanding there was a route to exclude men with GRCs from women only services but it was unclear and uncertain. It sounded difficult to operate. And the @EHRC statutory code said case by case.
So the lineage of that policy that Sussex University has just been fined £0.5m for goes back via Advance HE and the Equality Challenge Unit to the SWP! 🤯
I have seen quite a lot of this question going around.
Its called the "transman gotcha" and it is addressed in the Supreme Court judgment.
It goes like this: If you exclude "trans women" from women's spaces then you must include burly, bearded "trans men"
The answer in the judgment is that the Equality Act exceptions mean that both sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination prohibitions are disapplied so a service provider can lawfully exclude both ways.
There will be much talk of the single-sex exceptions in the Equality Act over the next few days.
These are the exceptions that allow service providers to offer services that are only open to one sex or the other (found at Schedule 3 Part 7 of the Act). (1/7)
Without these provisions service providers would be committing sex discrimination by excluding men or women.
Service providers don’t need to “use these exceptions” to exclude people, they just provide the service in the normal way. If they were to get sued they (or a lawyer) can point to the exceptions to show the service is lawful. (2/7)
The exceptions disapply both the prohibitions against sex discrimination and gender reassignment discrimination.
Again service providers don’t have to “use the exceptions” to exclude someone based on a particular protected characteristic. (3/7)