It's official - it's not transphobic to recognise the reality of biological sex in humans

I think this is a fantastic ruling which unfortunately has been lost amongst all the shenanigans going on at the moment.

It's lovely when you hear common sense has prevailed

It is.

It's about time that what, five years ago would have seemed blindingly obvious, is now recognised as the truth. I hope it doesn't take too long for that message to get through to those who still insist that a feeling can over-ride biology, and that the companies and organisations in the thrall of Stonewall will start to find better ways of spending their money and our council taxes.

We do seem to be having a week of momentous events?

Thanks for the link FarNorth I'll look forward to listening to that later this evening.
Whilst I'm delighted that common sense has finally prevailed, I think it's desperately sad that it's taken a long court case, and the inevitable physical and mental toll on Maya Forstater, to enshrine basic O Level biology in law.

Here's a link to the judgement :
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Forstater-JR-AG.pdf

And to Maya's press statement :
mforstater.medium.com/press-statement-maya-forstaters-victory-in-employment-tribunal-a-win-for-free-speech-and-99365009baa1

"The Tribunal also recognised that Ms Forstater had been entitled to criticise those holding an opposite view to her, and had done so legitimately. The Tribunal found in particular that the mere fact that offence may be taken to a particular statement was not sufficient to render it incapable of legal protection. This included describing opposing views as “stupid, dangerous or unfair” and the statement that allowing male-bodied individuals access to women-only spaces gave rise to “an increase in risks, threats and discomfort” to women."

It's a horrific thought Chewbacca that the intention of Stonewall, and others, has been to make it illegal to recognise the reality of human sex categories, and that they were close to succeeding in that while most people had no idea what was going on.

Another case that got lost.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10987627/Tax-expert-lost-job-tweeting-men-women-WINS-fresh-employment-tribunal.html

Good.

Great news. Thanks for all the links.
I do hope that the minority of ill-intentioned TW and their fans begin to realise what harm they have done to the trans community as a whole, whilst they are waging their misogynistic campaign against females and their rights and biological truth.

Very pleased about this.

Mollygo

Great news. Thanks for all the links.
I do hope that the minority of ill-intentioned TW and their fans begin to realise what harm they have done to the trans community as a whole, whilst they are waging their misogynistic campaign against females and their rights and biological truth.

Yes, this is important too.

I saw Suella Braverman on Peston last night, and she said that she was going to stand for PM. When asked what platform she was standing on, she mentioned gender critical policies.

There has been such a lot of damage done by Stonewall that it is very important when new legislation and precedent is introduced that it recognises that there are what I've been calling 'genuine' transpeople who just want to be left alone, and have hated all the TRA stuff. It would be tragic if they lost out because of all the nonsense, so whilst I am delighted that the pendulum has swung, I hope it doesn't swing so far that innocent people get hurt.

What I'd really like to see now is legislation to stop TRAs from breaking up feminist meetings. I'm sure that more general laws exist - it can't be legal to threaten and harass people as they've been doing - but it would help for there to be a special offence, as there would be for other hate crimes (and more importantly it would help if such laws were enforced).

What I'd like to see is repeal of the GRA.
There is now no legal reason for anyone to need an altered birth certificate showing the wrong sex, and no legal reason for a 'gender recognition certificate'.
Trans people should be free to live as they want in all circumstances where sex is not relevant.
Where sex is relevant, though, it needs to be correctly recognised.

Yes, that makes sense.

How ridiculous that it has taken a court case, lengthy and expensive, to establish a biological fact.

What I'd really like to see now is legislation to stop TRAs from breaking up feminist meetings. I'm sure that more general laws exist - it can't be legal to threaten and harass people as they've been doing - but it would help for there to be a special offence, as there would be for other hate crimes (and more importantly it would help if such laws were enforced).

Yes exactly this! Men, (however they present themselves) threatening women with aggression, intimidation and violence, for having the temerity to hold a women only meeting, should face legal justice.

I firmly believe that Stonewall far over reached their mandate and genuinely believed that they were invincible and could get away with anything in the name of inclusion. They've done irreparable harm to the trans community that just want to live a normal quiet life.

The BBC seems confused , which isn't helpful.

From a Twitter thread today :

"Important @BBCMorningLive segment on cervical cancer/smear tests which did not mention woman or female once. Included discussing language barriers to screening, esp minority ethnic communities!"
...
"This is another example of how avoiding the word woman makes it harder to get the medical message across. This has turned what could have been a good segment into a missed opportunity. @BBCBreakfast wasn't shy about using the word 'men' re: prostate cancer this morning."

It’s good news.

So it takes 5 years to state the bluddy obvious,wonders never cease.

One of the many reasons I don’t watch BBC news.
Batshit crazy woke central as far as I’m concerned.

MerylStreep I love that description of the BBC.

The problem will be with their current senior staff. They should start anew.

This is a concerning story:

"JK Rowling has defended a disabled schoolgirl who was told she did not have the right to women-only care in school toilets.

The parents of the 16 year-old girl, who has severe learning disabilities, were told two years ago the school was replacing it 'same-sex' intimate care policy with a 'cross-gender' policy.

This meant male staff would also be able to take part in intimate care for the pupil - including using the toilet and changing rooms.

Her parents have accused the special school, which has not been named, of putting their child at risk for the sake of 'celebrating staff diversity.'

Although a lawyer said removing the policy was a breach of the 2010 Equality Act, the school dismissed the finding as 'outdated and against majority opinion.'

JK Rowling blasted the school's approach on Twitter, saying it would endanger 'extremely vulnerable girls.'

The Harry Potter author added: 'This is a travesty.

'Have we learned nothing from successive abuse scandals? Do we value the disabled so little?'

The parents of 'Helen' - not her real name - wrote about their dispute with the school in a post on website Transgender Trend.

They said the school eventually conceded Helen could be cared for by women, but only because of 'parental preference.'"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11019997/JK-Rowling-defends-16-year-old-girl-told-women-care-school-toilets.html

Yet another example of centring male wants at the expense of female needs.

That is appalling DiamondLily.
So other young girls at the school will have no choice if their parents don't realise the policy has changed or don't make a huge fuss.

What other safeguards do they think can be dispensed with, I wonder.