The wild thing about this is that Starmer, once the top lawyer in the UK, is just plain wrong about this. The equality act is clear about this and there are multiple examples of case law stating exactly that trans women have the right to use single-sex spaces aligning with their gender identity.
The GRA is irrelevant here, having a GRC does not change what spaces a trans person can use. The literal text of the EA2010 says that a person with the gender reassignment characteristic is changing or has changed their sex. That is the legal definition of gender reassignment.
The EA allows for limited, case-by-case exclusion of trans people from single-sex spaces, as long as that exclusion is a proportional means to achieve a legitimate aim. This does not allow for blanket exclusion of trans women from single-sex spaces, if it did then there would be case law on it.
Think about it, we've been at this in the UK for ten fucking years now. If the law actually allowed blanket restrictions, do you not think that some TERF organisation or another would have gone to court and proven their case?
But they don't, because they know they will lose.
Ann Sinnot from LGBA tried to get a judicial review into the guidance on the EA2010 in 2021, arguing that you can't have single-sex spaces that include trans people. She failed to even get a review, the judge told her that she was "wrong in law" and her position was "unarguable".
And this is the thing that frustrates me so much, in the 11 years since I transitioned over witnessed every single step this country has taken into the shitter on this subject, despite the fact that the courts have ruled in our favour over and over again. Even MF's big win was not as big as claimed.
And Labour and the Tories and bending over fucking backwards, making absolute fools of themselves, on a topic that is wildly unpopular with the public regardless of your views, being consistently plainly wrong about the law, and they can't fucking see it.
I remember as a law student having a lot of respect for Kier Starmer and his tenure as Director of Public Prosecutions; as there were quite a few positions that he made the right call on, but since becoming labour leader, he has been nothing but a bitter disappointment.
It's the same as the Tories issuing incorrect guidance for people to follow instead of the law.
Herr Starmer is deliberately promoting stochastic terrorism by saying we don't and shouldn't have the right to use the spaces that we do.
I am sorry but this angers me to no end. Thank you for sharing and posting, thank you for making us aware of this. We are fast becoming the scapegoats everywhere and we have to expose the lies and falacies behind this scafolding of arguments, to make it fall down. And it is tiresome :(
That's what I see... a newspaper wanting to validate their viewpoint, seeks a like minded scholar, and creates a false narrative of consensus and common sense to hide the falacies. Other people cite this interview and headline. And the falacy at the heart of the argument is hidden behind "consensus"
My point being... Liberal and Conservative thinking needs to first have a like-minded scholar issue the "intelectual" validation framework for their interests, and from there, others quote the scholar, not the concept. That is a way to pretend bad faith arguments, are not bad faith. It sickens me.
( this is the more post)... never a capitalist employed just everyone they could. They would just buy a machine. But to Adam Smith, labor laws just got in the way of full employment. Keynes called out on the lie. That is liberalism on its core, a infrastructure of lies, to base bad arguments on.
Once upon a Time, one of the main Liberal Theories on Labor proposed a concept, if I remember correctly, called "Voluntary Unemployment" - people unemployed by worker rights pushing paychecks into a fair wage line, hence "The capitalist cannot hire to his fullest capacity". ( need one more post)
