-
Then the question is should they also invoke Schedule 3 para 28 to exclude transwomen w a GRC who are legally women. Is it proportionate. I would say yes. Because the reason for the single sex exemption in the first place is to allow bodily privacy.
The single sex ponds are places where men & women don't expect to be exposed while in a state of undress/half dressed to people of the opposite sex, and therefore to keep that expectation, excluding people of the opposite sex is proportionate, especially since there are 3 pondspic.twitter.com/xZyg8NULpK
-
-
Some people believe that a person with a penis can be a woman, some (a majority) don't. Neither group should be discriminated against in everyday life. But in situations involving taking your clothes off with strangers, integration of the two groups is not possible.pic.twitter.com/klAZCYuQX8
-
But this isn't about belief surely, it is about what the law says. And since the GRA 2004 someone with a penis *is* a woman if they go through the GRC procedure successfully.
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Agreed. The detriment caused to trans people by disallowing them from using female only spaces and instead requiring that they use the unisex space is proportionate. They are not prevented from swimming and the legitimate aim of retaining a female only space is met.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.