Thought I’d share for discussion. What a pretty horrific decision, imo.
2 Likes
Will they be admitting transgender men?
3 Likes
Decision by the Supreme Court that biology is sacrosanct and that sex in binary, not feelings or gender, which is a 60s social construct.
3 Likes
Girl guides is already an outdated idea. At least young trans people will still be able to join scouts or any of the cadet forces.
1 Like
Reading the BBC article on it which says they can.
It also suggests the decision might have been driven by legal action taken against them by parents.
Until the first case hits the courts. The Supreme Court is quite clear in its judgement, and has defined what is lawful and this applies to all organisations. Anything against their deliberations would be illegal and costly.
2 Likes
All the supreme court said was that sex, for the sake of The Equality Act, means sex recorded at birth. That’s pretty much all they said.
They didn’t tell Girlguiding UK they need not accept trans girls into their club.
2 Likes
Yeah, the misunderstanding of what they judgment says is madness.
This is not what the justices wanted.
1 Like
Are you implying that if a case was brought against the scouts/cadet forces they’d have to exclude trans people? If so, that doesn’t make sense given that they’re already mixed organisations. The only things it might affect are the facilities we provide and some activities, both of which are workable.
1 Like
How could we possibly defend such a decision when gender identity is itself a protected characteristic?
How will Girlguiding possibly defend a claim when a transgender girl is kicked out?
1 Like
The even crazier part of this decision is that current trans members are now in limbo without guidance.
We will now consult on this. Sorry what?! You say trans girls can’t join, but current members can stay? Makes the whole thing even more silly.
1 Like
I hope the Good Law Project are all over this nonsense.
3 Likes
Sex is binary, the EHRC has made the guidance but Phillipson is dragging her feet.
No it isn’t. Any biologist will tell you that.
4 Likes
according to the supreme court, when using the word in the context of the equalities act. That’s it…
3 Likes
That is the main point that FWS brought the original case to the Supreme court that facilities are sex based not gender based.
Sports organisations have defined participants by sex, not by gender.
2 Likes
2. It is not the role of the court to adjudicate on the arguments in the public domain on the meaning of gender or sex, nor is it to define the meaning of the word “woman” other than when it is used in the provisions of the EA 2010. It has a more limited role which does not involve making policy. The principal question which the court addresses on this appeal is the meaning of the words which Parliament has used in the EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community against discrimination. Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).
3 Likes
We’re not talking about sports organisations.
Girl guides are not excluding trans women or cis men from volunteering, so they must already provide suitable facilities.
Some activities will require some thinking, but for the most part it shouldn’t cause any issues.
1 Like
Yeah, this isn’t against the volunteers, this is against the young people. Anyone can be a volunteer, cis men included.
But they have now decided to not allow in trans girls and women as members.
1 Like