karamantha.bsky.social
@karamantha.bsky.social
I wish I knew how you can trust them for refactoring when in my experience they just do lots of unasked for changes when refactoring
November 16, 2025 at 6:30 PM
I wish I knew how you can trust them for refactoring when in my experience they just do lots of unasked for changes when refactoring
They say "may be" because it would be very hard to prove
April 26, 2025 at 8:23 AM
They say "may be" because it would be very hard to prove
"if possible" it's like you don't see how following this guidance to the letter is obviously illegal.
April 26, 2025 at 8:10 AM
"if possible" it's like you don't see how following this guidance to the letter is obviously illegal.
You're just repeating yourself now.
The guidance goes far beyond that ruling.
And the ruling itself might be law, but it's wrong, impractical and deeply immoral law. It will be fought and by opening up their interpretation to obvious challenges like this guidance does, it will be easier to fight
The guidance goes far beyond that ruling.
And the ruling itself might be law, but it's wrong, impractical and deeply immoral law. It will be fought and by opening up their interpretation to obvious challenges like this guidance does, it will be easier to fight
April 26, 2025 at 8:09 AM
You're just repeating yourself now.
The guidance goes far beyond that ruling.
And the ruling itself might be law, but it's wrong, impractical and deeply immoral law. It will be fought and by opening up their interpretation to obvious challenges like this guidance does, it will be easier to fight
The guidance goes far beyond that ruling.
And the ruling itself might be law, but it's wrong, impractical and deeply immoral law. It will be fought and by opening up their interpretation to obvious challenges like this guidance does, it will be easier to fight
Go back and read it. It's very clear that trans men may also be excluded from women's toilets.
April 26, 2025 at 8:07 AM
Go back and read it. It's very clear that trans men may also be excluded from women's toilets.
The guidance as drafted prevents that
April 26, 2025 at 8:04 AM
The guidance as drafted prevents that
The balance here is very clear. You can't create a situation where trans people can't work at your business unless part of their duty requires them not to be trans.
April 26, 2025 at 8:04 AM
The balance here is very clear. You can't create a situation where trans people can't work at your business unless part of their duty requires them not to be trans.
Cresting a situation where it's impossible to employ a trans person because you have no toilet or changing room for them to use is the same thing
April 26, 2025 at 8:02 AM
Cresting a situation where it's impossible to employ a trans person because you have no toilet or changing room for them to use is the same thing
Unfortunately the business's finances don't come into it. A business that can't afford to provide an accessible toilet still gets fined for not providing one.
April 26, 2025 at 8:01 AM
Unfortunately the business's finances don't come into it. A business that can't afford to provide an accessible toilet still gets fined for not providing one.
It means it's deeply contradictory. And if they do exclude trans people without providing a space for them to use, that is clearly unlawful.
April 26, 2025 at 8:00 AM
It means it's deeply contradictory. And if they do exclude trans people without providing a space for them to use, that is clearly unlawful.
No, because the aim in this case is the aim of the employer, IE building widgets or selling leaflets or whatever. It's simply not proportionate to just not employ trans people because you can't be bothered to provide a toilet for them.
April 26, 2025 at 7:59 AM
No, because the aim in this case is the aim of the employer, IE building widgets or selling leaflets or whatever. It's simply not proportionate to just not employ trans people because you can't be bothered to provide a toilet for them.
But that seems extremely farfetched to me since they still provide a space for non trans women in that setting
April 26, 2025 at 7:58 AM
But that seems extremely farfetched to me since they still provide a space for non trans women in that setting
It says "if possible". But yes, it does say that. Which is why it is very expensive for businesses as the only way to comply with this guidance is to provide mixed sex spaces.
In fact the guidance claims they may be doing indirect discrimination by only providing all gender toilets
In fact the guidance claims they may be doing indirect discrimination by only providing all gender toilets
April 26, 2025 at 7:58 AM
It says "if possible". But yes, it does say that. Which is why it is very expensive for businesses as the only way to comply with this guidance is to provide mixed sex spaces.
In fact the guidance claims they may be doing indirect discrimination by only providing all gender toilets
In fact the guidance claims they may be doing indirect discrimination by only providing all gender toilets
The supreme court explicitly stated that trans people are protected from discrimination. Providing 0 spaces for them to pee during working hours is a clear example of discrimination
April 26, 2025 at 7:54 AM
The supreme court explicitly stated that trans people are protected from discrimination. Providing 0 spaces for them to pee during working hours is a clear example of discrimination
It says when it is allowed, which is if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. There is no level at which "making it impossible for trans people to work here" is proportionate.
April 26, 2025 at 7:52 AM
It says when it is allowed, which is if it's a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. There is no level at which "making it impossible for trans people to work here" is proportionate.
And it says "if possible" they must provide a mixed sex toilet. However, it's very difficult for an employer to argue it's not possible when the reality is it's just expensive.
Making it impossible for trans people to work in the office is clear employment discrimination
Making it impossible for trans people to work in the office is clear employment discrimination
April 26, 2025 at 7:47 AM
And it says "if possible" they must provide a mixed sex toilet. However, it's very difficult for an employer to argue it's not possible when the reality is it's just expensive.
Making it impossible for trans people to work in the office is clear employment discrimination
Making it impossible for trans people to work in the office is clear employment discrimination
Equally, it puts employers in a very difficult position. They can't push trans people into accessible toilets without risking indirect discrimination against people who need those toilets. They're told they can't let trans people use either "single sex" toilet.
April 26, 2025 at 7:47 AM
Equally, it puts employers in a very difficult position. They can't push trans people into accessible toilets without risking indirect discrimination against people who need those toilets. They're told they can't let trans people use either "single sex" toilet.
The equality act sets out a duty not to discriminate. It does not create a duty to discriminate against one group in favour of another. If you create a situation where trans men cannot access facilities (as suggested in the guidance) but cisgender people can, it is direct discrimination
April 26, 2025 at 7:45 AM
The equality act sets out a duty not to discriminate. It does not create a duty to discriminate against one group in favour of another. If you create a situation where trans men cannot access facilities (as suggested in the guidance) but cisgender people can, it is direct discrimination
It's more likely to be indirect discrimination NOT to provide a space trans people can use, since cis people can use mixed sex spaces.
April 26, 2025 at 7:43 AM
It's more likely to be indirect discrimination NOT to provide a space trans people can use, since cis people can use mixed sex spaces.
Which, by the way, is insane, the act only creates a requirement not to discriminate. The argument that it creates a duty to discriminate against one group to help another is absolute nonsense as a reading
April 26, 2025 at 7:08 AM
Which, by the way, is insane, the act only creates a requirement not to discriminate. The argument that it creates a duty to discriminate against one group to help another is absolute nonsense as a reading
In guidance it's must, should and may and they're terms of art.
April 25, 2025 at 10:54 PM
In guidance it's must, should and may and they're terms of art.
They're current rolling back our ability to exist in public right now. I haven't slept properly in nearly a fortnight.
April 25, 2025 at 9:46 PM
They're current rolling back our ability to exist in public right now. I haven't slept properly in nearly a fortnight.
It's more begging than demanding. Have you seen the new EHRC guidance? Which claims that even if providers want to include trans people they're not allowed to
April 25, 2025 at 9:45 PM
It's more begging than demanding. Have you seen the new EHRC guidance? Which claims that even if providers want to include trans people they're not allowed to
I listened to your speech. You claim it's about protecting dignity. But where is the dignity for *any* woman of being placed on a men's ward or in a men's prison. Where is the dignity of being unable to pee while out of the house? There is none. Stop lying.
April 22, 2025 at 4:52 PM
I listened to your speech. You claim it's about protecting dignity. But where is the dignity for *any* woman of being placed on a men's ward or in a men's prison. Where is the dignity of being unable to pee while out of the house? There is none. Stop lying.