As in, any "male" or "female" facility includes trans people in their preferred gender unless there is an explicit declaration otherwise posted.
-
-
How would this apply in situations of sex segregation due to bodily privacy (e.g. Under Schedule 3, s27 6b) "The circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to presence of a person of the opposite sex"? This says nothing about preferred gender
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Nespresso821 @MForstater and
And you know, it is rather interesting how those allegedly "against self-ID" and "wanting balance" always show themselves up as being against the current GRA too, for the kind of biological designation enforcement that is illegal across the Council of Europe.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Nespresso821 @MForstater and
On the contrary, it mandates a change of the "civil status" of sex, based on a diagnosis alone. (There is no ECHR self-ID mandate. There is a PACE recommendation, which is not binding).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @Nespresso821 @MForstater and
The exception that must be invoked to have such services or spaces is section 28 of the EA2010, and indeed it was not contested in the ECHR. Section 27 on its own refers to legal sex.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ramendik @Nespresso821 and
So Schedule 3 s.27 where the first example it gives is about cervical cancer screening services is referring to legal sex?
How does that work??1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @ramendik and
This thread is going all over the place, but you still haven't answered my question about how S.27 is referring to legal sex when its first example is about cervical screening.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Helloooo? Any answer?
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.