The case was *about* breaching a sexual harms prevention order by using fake names to evade detection and confuse victims
The sex offender has since changed his name back to Brandon but is said to be awaiting an appointment with the gender identity clinic.
The defendant, on trial for using false names entered pleas under different names ....
Although now going by Brandon the defense now calls Walker "she".
The court (under the instruction of the Equal Treatment Bench Book) is enabling the very behaviour the defendant uses to persue victims for sexual harms.
Valiant reporting by @Katie_Cronin . Local press remains important!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Like here. Was it a women's health spa? In which case yes it is legitimate to exclude members of the opposite sex
If it was a mixed sex spa why does the example only ref women complaining?
And this one - a female who has no surgery or medication but passes for male (is the EHRC on drugs?)
But it's a non threatening example.
Why no make it about a male who has no surgery and lives "as a woman"
Would be covered by S7. But should they be in the female spa??
And this one. A clothing store has a women's changing room . So it excludes men. Men can't just say "but there are cubicles!" They'd still be turned away presumably... So the cubicles don't make it ok
. @GATEOrg are looking for a consultant to write a hit piece on UK feminists who are concerned about the replacement of sex by gender in law and policy and the transing of children...
Gate have noticed (as we have been saying for ages) that the movement of people concerned about gender ideology in the UK are not in the main right wing or religious but feminist and LGB lead.
These are people who founded and supported Stonewall and marched against section 28.
This does not fit with the story that the LGBT orgs and their funders have been telling themself: that the only people who object to the replacement of sex by 'gender identity' are conservative political and religious groups
Kemi Badenoch confirms "Providers have the right to restrict the use of spaces on the basis of sex, and exclude transgender people with or without a GRC if this is justified."
The Equality Act allows for single sex spaces - including everyday privacy and dignity.
A single sex service means applying a sex based rule to the space
The question is does the Equality Act allow some people to claim that the sex based rules don't apply to them -- that some males can use female only spaces?
There isn't much specific case law on this - but there are good principles that apply from age discrimination cases.