Centerish Dad
@centerishdad.bsky.social
Mid-life, middle class/middle way, drives on the left, neurodirverse
UK born & resident, (mainly liberal, never Tory, never communist)
optimist, realist, socialist, democrat, republican & constitutional monarchist, pragmatist, internationalist, & humanist
UK born & resident, (mainly liberal, never Tory, never communist)
optimist, realist, socialist, democrat, republican & constitutional monarchist, pragmatist, internationalist, & humanist
I had been hoping Sumption's distinction of you CAN rather than you MUST, might help this since I heard his interview.
But no such joy on the EHRC interim guidance :-(
Kudos to sarahviktoria.bsky.social for the transcription
bsky.app/profile/sara...
www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre...
But no such joy on the EHRC interim guidance :-(
Kudos to sarahviktoria.bsky.social for the transcription
bsky.app/profile/sara...
www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre...
Bluesky
sarahviktoria.bsky.social
April 26, 2025 at 5:49 PM
I had been hoping Sumption's distinction of you CAN rather than you MUST, might help this since I heard his interview.
But no such joy on the EHRC interim guidance :-(
Kudos to sarahviktoria.bsky.social for the transcription
bsky.app/profile/sara...
www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre...
But no such joy on the EHRC interim guidance :-(
Kudos to sarahviktoria.bsky.social for the transcription
bsky.app/profile/sara...
www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre...
I agree they could have had more interveners.
Maybe a specialist trans rights group would have had more to say.
But of the four interveners, the EHRC and Amnesty International backed up the Scots Gov't case, while Sex Matters & a lesbian consortium were for the appellants.
Which judge was blocked?
Maybe a specialist trans rights group would have had more to say.
But of the four interveners, the EHRC and Amnesty International backed up the Scots Gov't case, while Sex Matters & a lesbian consortium were for the appellants.
Which judge was blocked?
April 26, 2025 at 5:11 PM
I agree they could have had more interveners.
Maybe a specialist trans rights group would have had more to say.
But of the four interveners, the EHRC and Amnesty International backed up the Scots Gov't case, while Sex Matters & a lesbian consortium were for the appellants.
Which judge was blocked?
Maybe a specialist trans rights group would have had more to say.
But of the four interveners, the EHRC and Amnesty International backed up the Scots Gov't case, while Sex Matters & a lesbian consortium were for the appellants.
Which judge was blocked?
I don't think I am anti.
I'm not wanting to strip anyone of their rights.
I am pro-LGBT & trans-rights are universal human rights.
Sorry if that's too tolerant for you
But I want to understand how/why the law gets things morally wrong.
And pragmatically, can we change it?
Or how do we live with it?
I'm not wanting to strip anyone of their rights.
I am pro-LGBT & trans-rights are universal human rights.
Sorry if that's too tolerant for you
But I want to understand how/why the law gets things morally wrong.
And pragmatically, can we change it?
Or how do we live with it?
April 26, 2025 at 4:52 PM
I don't think I am anti.
I'm not wanting to strip anyone of their rights.
I am pro-LGBT & trans-rights are universal human rights.
Sorry if that's too tolerant for you
But I want to understand how/why the law gets things morally wrong.
And pragmatically, can we change it?
Or how do we live with it?
I'm not wanting to strip anyone of their rights.
I am pro-LGBT & trans-rights are universal human rights.
Sorry if that's too tolerant for you
But I want to understand how/why the law gets things morally wrong.
And pragmatically, can we change it?
Or how do we live with it?
If you mean they looked at the use of woman (& man) in the EA, it's because that was the issue via the Scots case.
They looked at both interpretations in the whole EA to see which made most sense.
I think the SC judgement was a legal not a value one.
The EHRC guidelines are more value ridden IMO.
They looked at both interpretations in the whole EA to see which made most sense.
I think the SC judgement was a legal not a value one.
The EHRC guidelines are more value ridden IMO.
April 26, 2025 at 4:24 PM
If you mean they looked at the use of woman (& man) in the EA, it's because that was the issue via the Scots case.
They looked at both interpretations in the whole EA to see which made most sense.
I think the SC judgement was a legal not a value one.
The EHRC guidelines are more value ridden IMO.
They looked at both interpretations in the whole EA to see which made most sense.
I think the SC judgement was a legal not a value one.
The EHRC guidelines are more value ridden IMO.
That's not the way courts work. This wasn't even case law, they had to decide what Parliament meant in the EA for FWS appeal.
I looked at the judgement to see why they said what they said, because I didn't agree with it.
Is everyone different to you a lying fuck?
Lack of tolerance is the problem.
I looked at the judgement to see why they said what they said, because I didn't agree with it.
Is everyone different to you a lying fuck?
Lack of tolerance is the problem.
April 26, 2025 at 4:06 PM
That's not the way courts work. This wasn't even case law, they had to decide what Parliament meant in the EA for FWS appeal.
I looked at the judgement to see why they said what they said, because I didn't agree with it.
Is everyone different to you a lying fuck?
Lack of tolerance is the problem.
I looked at the judgement to see why they said what they said, because I didn't agree with it.
Is everyone different to you a lying fuck?
Lack of tolerance is the problem.
Not good.
For many it may still be "don't ask, don't tell" - a form of marginalisation in itself
But it will exclude those afraid of confrontation, or who don't "pass"
Most trans people (contrary to red top opinions) don't go around shouting out their status, especially if they just need the toilet
For many it may still be "don't ask, don't tell" - a form of marginalisation in itself
But it will exclude those afraid of confrontation, or who don't "pass"
Most trans people (contrary to red top opinions) don't go around shouting out their status, especially if they just need the toilet
April 26, 2025 at 1:08 AM
Not good.
For many it may still be "don't ask, don't tell" - a form of marginalisation in itself
But it will exclude those afraid of confrontation, or who don't "pass"
Most trans people (contrary to red top opinions) don't go around shouting out their status, especially if they just need the toilet
For many it may still be "don't ask, don't tell" - a form of marginalisation in itself
But it will exclude those afraid of confrontation, or who don't "pass"
Most trans people (contrary to red top opinions) don't go around shouting out their status, especially if they just need the toilet
This EHRC guidance is because the supreme court judgement pointed out that a trans-man should (under the EA) be excluded from male, but would be inappropriate to use the female.
They do however have to be provided with appropriate facilities.
So expect urgent building work on lots more unisex loos
They do however have to be provided with appropriate facilities.
So expect urgent building work on lots more unisex loos
April 26, 2025 at 12:52 AM
This EHRC guidance is because the supreme court judgement pointed out that a trans-man should (under the EA) be excluded from male, but would be inappropriate to use the female.
They do however have to be provided with appropriate facilities.
So expect urgent building work on lots more unisex loos
They do however have to be provided with appropriate facilities.
So expect urgent building work on lots more unisex loos
Starmer and crew won't want to scare off their more reactionary voters with anything that seems pro-trans.
(Face it, they still run scared from EU cooperation)
Also the dust needs to settle; there are important issues vying for government attention.
We have to keep arguing for fairness & good sense
(Face it, they still run scared from EU cooperation)
Also the dust needs to settle; there are important issues vying for government attention.
We have to keep arguing for fairness & good sense
April 26, 2025 at 12:42 AM
Starmer and crew won't want to scare off their more reactionary voters with anything that seems pro-trans.
(Face it, they still run scared from EU cooperation)
Also the dust needs to settle; there are important issues vying for government attention.
We have to keep arguing for fairness & good sense
(Face it, they still run scared from EU cooperation)
Also the dust needs to settle; there are important issues vying for government attention.
We have to keep arguing for fairness & good sense
So trans rights are now lower WRT single sex services.
That is true even where a GRC legally changes gender/sex
Where that leaves us I am not sure.
Despite the SC's cautionary comments the ruling is being used to marginalise trans people.
We may need new laws but I doubt that will be soon.
...
That is true even where a GRC legally changes gender/sex
Where that leaves us I am not sure.
Despite the SC's cautionary comments the ruling is being used to marginalise trans people.
We may need new laws but I doubt that will be soon.
...
April 26, 2025 at 12:42 AM
So trans rights are now lower WRT single sex services.
That is true even where a GRC legally changes gender/sex
Where that leaves us I am not sure.
Despite the SC's cautionary comments the ruling is being used to marginalise trans people.
We may need new laws but I doubt that will be soon.
...
That is true even where a GRC legally changes gender/sex
Where that leaves us I am not sure.
Despite the SC's cautionary comments the ruling is being used to marginalise trans people.
We may need new laws but I doubt that will be soon.
...
The EA regulates public & private service providers actions to avoid unfair discrimination.
It doesn't penalise an individual for using the "wrong" service or toilet.
AFAIK that's not criminal, but in some cases it could become a public order offence, (conduct likely to cause alarm/distress)...
It doesn't penalise an individual for using the "wrong" service or toilet.
AFAIK that's not criminal, but in some cases it could become a public order offence, (conduct likely to cause alarm/distress)...
April 26, 2025 at 12:42 AM
The EA regulates public & private service providers actions to avoid unfair discrimination.
It doesn't penalise an individual for using the "wrong" service or toilet.
AFAIK that's not criminal, but in some cases it could become a public order offence, (conduct likely to cause alarm/distress)...
It doesn't penalise an individual for using the "wrong" service or toilet.
AFAIK that's not criminal, but in some cases it could become a public order offence, (conduct likely to cause alarm/distress)...
Most trans people don't have a GRC, and people who say they "can always tell" have no way to check - even if they want to go peer over toilet stalls
In practice most trans people will carry on using toilets the same as before
But we will see more disabled toilets made unisex or "trans-friendly"...
In practice most trans people will carry on using toilets the same as before
But we will see more disabled toilets made unisex or "trans-friendly"...
April 26, 2025 at 12:42 AM
Most trans people don't have a GRC, and people who say they "can always tell" have no way to check - even if they want to go peer over toilet stalls
In practice most trans people will carry on using toilets the same as before
But we will see more disabled toilets made unisex or "trans-friendly"...
In practice most trans people will carry on using toilets the same as before
But we will see more disabled toilets made unisex or "trans-friendly"...
Equality Act says trans people are not allowed in single sex spaces of their chosen gender. So toilets and (say) a women's DV refuge can be barred.
Apart from the difficulty of determining sex by sight alone, who will police toilets?
Trans people with a GRC have identical proof to a cis person...
Apart from the difficulty of determining sex by sight alone, who will police toilets?
Trans people with a GRC have identical proof to a cis person...
April 26, 2025 at 12:42 AM
Equality Act says trans people are not allowed in single sex spaces of their chosen gender. So toilets and (say) a women's DV refuge can be barred.
Apart from the difficulty of determining sex by sight alone, who will police toilets?
Trans people with a GRC have identical proof to a cis person...
Apart from the difficulty of determining sex by sight alone, who will police toilets?
Trans people with a GRC have identical proof to a cis person...
The SC took their time to interpret the meaning of the ambiguous EA 2010 law
They gave a carefully considered decision & explanation based on Parliament's law
They clearly tried to mitigate the impact on trans people, much more than most commentators who have pounced on the chance to denigrate
...
They gave a carefully considered decision & explanation based on Parliament's law
They clearly tried to mitigate the impact on trans people, much more than most commentators who have pounced on the chance to denigrate
...
April 26, 2025 at 12:42 AM
The SC took their time to interpret the meaning of the ambiguous EA 2010 law
They gave a carefully considered decision & explanation based on Parliament's law
They clearly tried to mitigate the impact on trans people, much more than most commentators who have pounced on the chance to denigrate
...
They gave a carefully considered decision & explanation based on Parliament's law
They clearly tried to mitigate the impact on trans people, much more than most commentators who have pounced on the chance to denigrate
...
The government doesn't control the supreme court's timetable any more than its judgements
Suggesting they do is akin to conspiracy theory
They don't (directly) control the EHRC either - it's independent.
But given the EHRC submissions were overruled by the SC, their old guidance had to be updated.
🧵
Suggesting they do is akin to conspiracy theory
They don't (directly) control the EHRC either - it's independent.
But given the EHRC submissions were overruled by the SC, their old guidance had to be updated.
🧵
April 26, 2025 at 12:42 AM
The government doesn't control the supreme court's timetable any more than its judgements
Suggesting they do is akin to conspiracy theory
They don't (directly) control the EHRC either - it's independent.
But given the EHRC submissions were overruled by the SC, their old guidance had to be updated.
🧵
Suggesting they do is akin to conspiracy theory
They don't (directly) control the EHRC either - it's independent.
But given the EHRC submissions were overruled by the SC, their old guidance had to be updated.
🧵
Targetting immigrants didn't help Lucy Connolly.
Poisoness attitudes against trans people encourage hatred & "othering" & I expect complaints (or attacks) based on appearance
But in practice if you "pass" nobody knows.
Tolerance is needed on both sides, but we need more legal cases or law changes.
Poisoness attitudes against trans people encourage hatred & "othering" & I expect complaints (or attacks) based on appearance
But in practice if you "pass" nobody knows.
Tolerance is needed on both sides, but we need more legal cases or law changes.
April 22, 2025 at 3:06 PM
Targetting immigrants didn't help Lucy Connolly.
Poisoness attitudes against trans people encourage hatred & "othering" & I expect complaints (or attacks) based on appearance
But in practice if you "pass" nobody knows.
Tolerance is needed on both sides, but we need more legal cases or law changes.
Poisoness attitudes against trans people encourage hatred & "othering" & I expect complaints (or attacks) based on appearance
But in practice if you "pass" nobody knows.
Tolerance is needed on both sides, but we need more legal cases or law changes.
Facists will do what they want anyway - some are jumping on this as a victory.
If it's a battle in a war, they've not won that.
What MPs & the EHRC say and do about it has a great deal of importance in how people understand their obligations & rights.
Rights need to be exercised to be effective.
If it's a battle in a war, they've not won that.
What MPs & the EHRC say and do about it has a great deal of importance in how people understand their obligations & rights.
Rights need to be exercised to be effective.
April 22, 2025 at 2:54 PM
Facists will do what they want anyway - some are jumping on this as a victory.
If it's a battle in a war, they've not won that.
What MPs & the EHRC say and do about it has a great deal of importance in how people understand their obligations & rights.
Rights need to be exercised to be effective.
If it's a battle in a war, they've not won that.
What MPs & the EHRC say and do about it has a great deal of importance in how people understand their obligations & rights.
Rights need to be exercised to be effective.
4/4
Services can (not must) be provided for (bio)men & women, but then need to proportionally accomodate trans people (cf disabled access provision)
Saying trans-men (who may look male) must use female toilets goes beyond what the court said
It's still pragmatic to use the most appropriate option
Services can (not must) be provided for (bio)men & women, but then need to proportionally accomodate trans people (cf disabled access provision)
Saying trans-men (who may look male) must use female toilets goes beyond what the court said
It's still pragmatic to use the most appropriate option
April 22, 2025 at 2:45 PM
4/4
Services can (not must) be provided for (bio)men & women, but then need to proportionally accomodate trans people (cf disabled access provision)
Saying trans-men (who may look male) must use female toilets goes beyond what the court said
It's still pragmatic to use the most appropriate option
Services can (not must) be provided for (bio)men & women, but then need to proportionally accomodate trans people (cf disabled access provision)
Saying trans-men (who may look male) must use female toilets goes beyond what the court said
It's still pragmatic to use the most appropriate option
3/n
The core legal argument was about "woman" in the EA, but the judgement (paras 99,100&108,110)
still upholds Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004
i.e. a GRC does legally change gender (& sex)
and cannot be disregarded where the acquired gender is legally relevant, eg sex discrimination
The core legal argument was about "woman" in the EA, but the judgement (paras 99,100&108,110)
still upholds Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004
i.e. a GRC does legally change gender (& sex)
and cannot be disregarded where the acquired gender is legally relevant, eg sex discrimination
April 22, 2025 at 2:36 PM
3/n
The core legal argument was about "woman" in the EA, but the judgement (paras 99,100&108,110)
still upholds Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004
i.e. a GRC does legally change gender (& sex)
and cannot be disregarded where the acquired gender is legally relevant, eg sex discrimination
The core legal argument was about "woman" in the EA, but the judgement (paras 99,100&108,110)
still upholds Section 9 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004
i.e. a GRC does legally change gender (& sex)
and cannot be disregarded where the acquired gender is legally relevant, eg sex discrimination
2/n Correction - it does refer to sanitary facilities - but in reasoning & parliament's intentions, not the judgement.
EA exceptions allow for the provision of single-(biological)sex services, where proportionate.
But doesn't mandate them.
So is a toilet a single-sex space?
Or single gender?
IDK
EA exceptions allow for the provision of single-(biological)sex services, where proportionate.
But doesn't mandate them.
So is a toilet a single-sex space?
Or single gender?
IDK
April 22, 2025 at 2:06 PM
2/n Correction - it does refer to sanitary facilities - but in reasoning & parliament's intentions, not the judgement.
EA exceptions allow for the provision of single-(biological)sex services, where proportionate.
But doesn't mandate them.
So is a toilet a single-sex space?
Or single gender?
IDK
EA exceptions allow for the provision of single-(biological)sex services, where proportionate.
But doesn't mandate them.
So is a toilet a single-sex space?
Or single gender?
IDK
It's a mess!
The judgment ruled on if 50% women on a public board (under EA 2010) did or didn't include trans women.
The SC cautioned on seeing the judgement "as a victory of one side over another" - which then happened
It's not clear what it means in other contexts, hence the debate is ongoing.
The judgment ruled on if 50% women on a public board (under EA 2010) did or didn't include trans women.
The SC cautioned on seeing the judgement "as a victory of one side over another" - which then happened
It's not clear what it means in other contexts, hence the debate is ongoing.
April 22, 2025 at 1:43 PM
It's a mess!
The judgment ruled on if 50% women on a public board (under EA 2010) did or didn't include trans women.
The SC cautioned on seeing the judgement "as a victory of one side over another" - which then happened
It's not clear what it means in other contexts, hence the debate is ongoing.
The judgment ruled on if 50% women on a public board (under EA 2010) did or didn't include trans women.
The SC cautioned on seeing the judgement "as a victory of one side over another" - which then happened
It's not clear what it means in other contexts, hence the debate is ongoing.
1/2
It doesn't mention toilets at all.
Neither does it define the meaning of the word “woman” except for the Equality Act 2010.
Previous interpretations on Toilet Equality main cover provisions for protected characteristics, not the users.
supremecourt.uk/cases/judgme...
www.gov.uk/government/c...
It doesn't mention toilets at all.
Neither does it define the meaning of the word “woman” except for the Equality Act 2010.
Previous interpretations on Toilet Equality main cover provisions for protected characteristics, not the users.
supremecourt.uk/cases/judgme...
www.gov.uk/government/c...
Equality impact assessment for the provision of toilets
www.gov.uk
April 22, 2025 at 1:12 PM
1/2
It doesn't mention toilets at all.
Neither does it define the meaning of the word “woman” except for the Equality Act 2010.
Previous interpretations on Toilet Equality main cover provisions for protected characteristics, not the users.
supremecourt.uk/cases/judgme...
www.gov.uk/government/c...
It doesn't mention toilets at all.
Neither does it define the meaning of the word “woman” except for the Equality Act 2010.
Previous interpretations on Toilet Equality main cover provisions for protected characteristics, not the users.
supremecourt.uk/cases/judgme...
www.gov.uk/government/c...
Like inserts for everlasting light bulbs, magnetic water softeners, and anti radiation stickers the science is at best unproven, and the products are usually a scam.
interestingengineering.com/culture/your...
sciencebasedmedicine.org/detox-scams-...
malwaretips.com/blogs/miracl...
interestingengineering.com/culture/your...
sciencebasedmedicine.org/detox-scams-...
malwaretips.com/blogs/miracl...
Your Guide to Products and Technologies That Are Pseudoscience
Not every miracle product is miraculous. Here's how to spot products and techs based on pseudoscience.
interestingengineering.com
April 22, 2025 at 12:52 AM
Like inserts for everlasting light bulbs, magnetic water softeners, and anti radiation stickers the science is at best unproven, and the products are usually a scam.
interestingengineering.com/culture/your...
sciencebasedmedicine.org/detox-scams-...
malwaretips.com/blogs/miracl...
interestingengineering.com/culture/your...
sciencebasedmedicine.org/detox-scams-...
malwaretips.com/blogs/miracl...
And legal requirements - British electrical systems are some of the best in the world.
But if you import directly, then you may get a substandard product.
www.en-standard.eu/bs-1363-2-20...
www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/produc...
But if you import directly, then you may get a substandard product.
www.en-standard.eu/bs-1363-2-20...
www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/produc...
BS 1363 - 13A Plugs, Sockets, Adaptors, Connections
Ensure the electrical safety of 13 Amp plugs, socket-outlets, adaptors and connection units. The BS 1363 series provides essential requirements for the safety, construction, dimensional accuracy, test...
www.bsigroup.com
April 22, 2025 at 12:34 AM
And legal requirements - British electrical systems are some of the best in the world.
But if you import directly, then you may get a substandard product.
www.en-standard.eu/bs-1363-2-20...
www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/produc...
But if you import directly, then you may get a substandard product.
www.en-standard.eu/bs-1363-2-20...
www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/produc...
April 19, 2025 at 1:49 AM