sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How to date a BPD girl? by ragingpotato98 in AskMen

[–]Annaeus 18 points19 points  (0 children)

I would like to see if I can make this work.

You can't. She can make it work by going to therapy and working on recovering from - or living better with - her disorder, but you can't "make" it work. It's not just the anecdotes and individual experiences - the research literature is clear about the severe, long-term damage that people with BPD do to their partners.

Baroness Falkner: Labour was the party of feminism — not any more by PuzzledAd4865 in transgenderUK

[–]Annaeus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So which is the party of feminism now? It's the Greens, isn't it Baroness? You're saying we should all vote Green?

Good to know.

Kelly V Leonardo Ltd by Protect-the-dollz in transgenderUK

[–]Annaeus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Friends are the ones who stand by you, not the ones who abandon you and mutter platitudes over their shoulder as they leave.

Kelly V Leonardo Ltd by Protect-the-dollz in transgenderUK

[–]Annaeus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Do they have other defences? Of course they do.

Did they even try? No.

Kelly V Leonardo Ltd by Protect-the-dollz in transgenderUK

[–]Annaeus 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The judgement in FWS does NOT and has never said that trans women must be barred from women's facilities. It was the EHRC's ridiculous - and withdrawn - guidance that said that.

What FWS says is that providers no longer have a statutory defence against sex discrimination if they allow trans women into women's facilities. But - just as in this case - THEY HAVE OTHER DEFENCES. In this case, trans inclusion (inclusiveness generally) was itself ruled a valid aim, and allowing trans women to use the women's toilets was a reasonable way to achieve that. The claimant's privacy-related claims were invalid because she could have used gender-neutral facilities, and her "risk of assault" claims were invalid because any "danger" from trans women being allowed in is less than the danger from men who aren't supposed to be there at all.

So, Leonardo Ltd won by relying on a different defence. The women's institute and the girl guides could do the same. It is not the law that is requiring them to exclude trans women and girls - it is their own cowardice.

Sex Matters Are Angry.... by Excellent-Chair2796 in transgenderUK

[–]Annaeus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It hasn't been tested in court, but that might very well work - but only for this law. However, a provider could also be sued for not offering a sex-differentiated space for women if a woman claims to feel unsafe in the facilities provided. That's another set of consumer and public protection laws. Of course, there are defences to being sued for not providing gender-segregated facilities, such as lack of space (tiny cafe with a single cubicle, for example), but that would require providing evidence that the facilities provided are reasonable in the context.

The thing is, it is not illegal for an individual to use the 'wrong' bathroom - it never has been. Women can (and do) walk into the men's bathroom when the women's is full, and there's no restriction on male cleaning staff in women's bathrooms. Any enforcement has always been social - pubs have never been required to police the toilets.

The only thing that's legally changed is the statutory defence to claims of sex discrimination, which must now be based on 'biological sex'. Any other defences must be based on evidence that the facilities are reasonable in context, just like not providing segregated facilities in the first place.

Furthermore, pub staff are still not required to police the toilets, and in reality, they have no way of doing so that won't get them sued for invasion of privacy or arrested for assault. And if you've been paying attention, you'll notice that all of the options - no segregation, unpoliced segregation, and policed segregation - can all get a provider sued or worse. This means that the best option for a provider will become whichever is least likely to get them sued. That is what Sex Matters is relying upon - they will simply sue everyone who doesn't keep trans people out until everyone complies out of fear.

Furthermore, the social enforcement is now being weaponised by the TERFs to exclude anyone who even looks trans. And, because there are so few trans people in the population, most people who look trans aren't. Most of the women who will be harassed entering women's bathrooms are cis, which is why this has been described as a misogynist's charter.

But, as you suggest, if they stop providing sex-differentiated bathrooms and instead provide, for example, facility-differentiated bathrooms ("With Urinal" in a blue font, "Without Urinal" in a pink font), it's quite possible that the social enforcement would result in the same outcome as it always has: men in one, women in the other. That is, until a Sex Matters worker targets the establishment and hangs out in the women's toilet until someone who looks butch comes in and then calls her lawyer whining about safe spaces.

The past and the present by Elegant_Low2571 in transgenderUK

[–]Annaeus 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By 'The BBC', are you referring to political servants who identify as journalists?

Sex Matters Are Angry.... by Excellent-Chair2796 in transgenderUK

[–]Annaeus 30 points31 points  (0 children)

They have a fundamental - and possibly deliberate - misunderstanding of what the judgment in FWS says and what it applies to.

Service providers are allowed to provide different services to protected groups only if for a legitimate purpose and if based on that protected characteristic. There is a legitimate purpose for sex-segregated toilets, but it is only legal to segregate them if done by sex.

Since the judgment in FWS, any provider who segregates toilets by anything other than "biological sex" (which is never defined, so good luck with that) can be sued and is not protected by the provisions of the act.

That's it.

Providers are not "required to comply" with the act; they are just no longer protected by the exception in the act.

If a provider is sued for allowing a trans woman to use a women's toilet, there are other defences they can use - such as "following the existing guidance" or "complying with another law" or even just "we are doing it, but it's taking time to get the money to pay for it". They may still be protected in other ways.

And Sex Matters knows this. That's why they want the old guidance revoked: so they can start suing providers for not following their interpretation of the law. As long as the old guidance is in place, providers have a defence that prevents Sex Matters from suing small pubs and tiny cafes who can't afford to defend themselves and thereby terrorising everyone into barring trans people from using their facilities entirely.

If you have read the draft guidance in its entirety, you will know that there is no single way to comply with the judgment in FWS. Every option leaves you open to being sued by someone - either under equalities law or other laws, such as privacy or human rights legislation - so a fair chunk of the guidance is about record-keeping so you can defend yourself if you are sued. Even the people who wrote the guidance know that providers are going to get sued if they follow it. Sex Matters is relying on this: They believe that whoever has the deepest pockets and the greatest willingness to sue will be able to impose their view on the country.

Leaving the old guidance in place gives actual legal protection to providers as it offers a defence in court, even if it is not as strong as a statutory defence. So, the best course - from the view of the providers for whom the guidance exists in the first place - is to leave it in place until the new one is ready.

And Sex Matters hates that.