The law is clear
The Telegraph on that ruling that has Jolyon in a snit:
Employers can legally ban transgender women from using female toilets and changing rooms, the High Court has ruled.
Employers can legally ban men from using women’s toilets. Remember when it was just taken for granted that men were banned from using women’s toilets? Remember when men could be arrested for perving on women that way? I do.
Activists had challenged interim guidance from the equalities watchdog that said public bodies and organisations should segregate toilets, changing rooms and sports teams by biological sex rather than self-declared identity.
But on Friday a judge dismissed their claims that the guidance was unlawful because it conflicted with previous human rights and equalities legislation.
Activists shmactivists. They’re no more activist than we are – we’re all activists, because we’ve been forced to be by this utterly stupid ideology.
There is now no legal obstacle to prevent employers from implementing the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) advice, published in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that the word “sex” in the Equality Act does not refer to biological sex.
Women’s rights groups will use the ruling to urge Bridget Phillipson to publish the EHRC’s final version of the guidance following months of delays, and take action against employers who flout the rules.
Ms Phillipson has so far refused to publish the EHRC’s final guidance, claiming that she is concerned about the potential cost to businesses.
Subtle hint that actually she’s just another Idiot For Trans Ideology.
Maya Forstater, the chief executive of gender-critical charity Sex Matters, said: “The law is clear. There was never any excuse for the Government, public bodies, regulators, charities or businesses to delay in implementing the Supreme Court judgment.”
No excuse, but plenty of reason. What reason? Contempt for women.
The judge rejected Ms Phillipson’s argument that the EHRC guidance, which said trans women – biological men – should not use female facilities, could be “trans exclusive”.
We do not care. We do not care about trans, we care about men perving at us. It’s that simple. We’ve all experienced it, starting around age 8, and we are embittered after years of watching men in government flattering and encouraging those men at our expense.
Lawyers from the Good Law Project had launched a judicial review against interim guidance from the EHRC. They had argued that the guidance was rushed, legally flawed and overly simplistic.
Jolyon Maugham, the founder of the Good Law Project, said the rules “violated” trans people’s right to privacy.
See? Like that. Jolyon pretending that women are violating men’s privacy. If it weren’t so foul it would be funny.
Am I missing something here? I thought the Supreme Court ruled that the word ‘sex’ in the Equality Act does refer to biological sex.
Well, these facilities were segregated by biological sex when they were established in the first place. So they’re being restored to their original intent and purpose, which has always been needed, and which should never have been changed, or even put into doubt.
@ 1 – From the House of Commons Library – “The Supreme Court has ruled that references to “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex (a person’s sex at birth).” So yes. I suppose having to repeat this blindingly obvious point so often causes us to go numb and get our words tangled now and then.
That’s true, but I would hope a journalist would have an editor to fix that.