It is possible to scroll backwards on this app.

John Wick de Florrette

Imagine there is a trend of increased diagnoses of cancer, or dementia, or asthma, or arthritis or whatever and when the government announce an expert review into it a whole bunch of people start shouting about how bad and cynical an idea this is. Well that's happening for mental health.

There are only two sexes. If you disagree with this then I will be sure you cannot define what a sex actually is. It will be clear you are just an unthinking ideologist.

I am making a legal point. As well as a rational and scientific one.

"trans male, trans woman" are not sexes of course. What utter nonsense.

Because unlike US law, English law is based on the expressed intent to provide sperate protections based on two different attrributes. No such argument is possible in US law and they end up with absurd conclusions that fail to protect women.

It means we can apply the same reasonong to ex;ucing men from the Women's Institute for example. There does not need to be a case by case definition of what "woman" means.

Letsas is legally optimistic - as a understated judge might say. The ruling is a bigger win for the gender-critical side than he wants to admit. Real change for trans inclusion will need Parliament, not clever but specious reinterpretation.

Letsas tries to draw on US decisions here. But the Bostock analogy doesn’t fit. UK law has separate protected characteristics (sex + gender reassignment). Excluding a trans woman from women’s services is now gender-reassignment discrimination (at most), not sex discrimination. This analogy fails.

... the Court explicitly said “sex” = biological sex throughout the Equality Act, not just for quotas. It rejected variable definitions to avoid incoherence (e.g. GRC-holders claiming pregnancy rights). Letsas denies how sweeping this is.

And as promised, some analysis on Letsas's witterings.

Letsas argues the UKSC For Women Scotland ruling is narrow & doesn’t green-light blanket trans exclusions from single-sex spaces. He says biological “sex” still allows trans protections via proportionality & Bostock-style reasoning. But...

So out of interest, what criteria should the girl guides use to ensure they comply with the law to have a female only space based on members being female?

I specifically asked about where a GRC deemed a man to be a woman. Repeatedly. Your example is outside of the scope of this. In fact, for the example to work all have to accept he is a man.

bsky.app/profile/quac...

But you cannot give an example.

And I will get back to you when I get on my train. Until then we can conclude you have failed to give an example where a GRC would result in a man being deemed to be a woman by the law.

A man who is not trans would also be treated exactly the same. The case shows the sex of a victim of discrimination is irrelevant as long as the employer thought they were discriminating against a woman for whatever reason.

You choose it as an example in response to my GRC question. It is not relevant.

His trans status or GRC status makes no difference.

In your example, it is the fact he is a man that was mistaken for a woman that is important. The impact of the employers sexism impacted him despite not being a woman. As I have pointed out, that might have occurred through thinking his name was a female male.

And the possession of a GRC makes no difference too.

It is no different in structure from a man making a claim because his name in the CV of “Leslie” was mistaken for being a woman. Declaring being “trans” here is incidental.

It is quite funny that your example would be a man making the claim in being a man and being mistaken for a woman.

Well let’s take that and it is a case where a man is mistaken for a woman by a sexist employer. How does that apply to the girl guides?

Then just please give me an example.

Or can you not because the Supreme Court ruling had rather made a GRC worthless?

I just need an example of where that might apply.

Please give an example.

So you cannot give a single example where a GRC will deem a man to be a woman in law.

I suspect you refuse to answer because you know that if such a situation still days exist it has nothing to do with the Girl Scout announcement.

I will do when you answer my very reasonable question.

Can you state a situation where the law will deem a man to be a woman in law because he holds a GRC?