The original context of the 2010 Act was that sex was binary, gender was not envisioned by Harman, the Act’s sponsor. Even she has said biology is the definition.As sex is the definition, except those with a GRA, but I suspect those will be challenged in the future.
Look at the split in Your Party over this, those of the Muslim and many faiths don’t accept that gender trumps biological sex.
Does not the RAF and RAFAC abide by sports organisation standards.
Remember how much of a mess Wigston got the RAF into in the past, by not following the law.
Yeah because religion is often grounded in reality.
Only for competitive sports events, which is very small amount of what we do. Which was my point.
Ohhhhh some people going to have tantrums when we remove gender from dress regs then.
I’m pretty sure this is going to get dragged through the courts….and rightly so.
Also it appears them seems to be a small community of bigoted view users on this forum now, it’s a shame
Are the RAF doing the same?
It’s an aligned approach yes
Don’t see what people can complain about then.
I don’t know why they just don’t go Unisex with the uniform full stop.
I don’t think this is quite the case & reading about this it sounds if Girl Guiding didn’t want to but was required to due to the Supreme Court ruling.
This is because the Girl Guides specifically used an exemption under the equality act to provide a female only youth group.
The Supreme Court ruling clarifying that the single sex ruling of the equality act refers to biological sex restricts the exemption the girl guides use.
the fact that girl guides applies this only to the guides themselves & has not expelled current members who would not now be permitted to join does indicate that they are not on an ideological purge - purely that they are applying the legal interpretation of the exemption that they utilise to exist.
If the girl guides hadn’t made this decision then they would be in breach of their charity’s aims & would be breaking charity law.
To try & apply this situation to RAFAC is just a stretch & not really relevant. I’m not a girl guide or volunteer with them so it’s really for them as an organisation to try & sort rather than someone who has had no involvement & come from a very different youth culture & ethos passing judgement.
Unfortunately the Good Law project come across as pretty much nonsense.
I believe they’ve lost most of their cases & reviews (?) - however trying to find non-biased or non-polarised reporting about them is pretty difficult.
Because that usually means women having to wear a male uniform and losing the choice they currently have to be different, i.e. erasing women. They already have the choice to wear the same uniform as men, if they so choose.
P.S. The Army are actually going the other way. After decades of female soldiers having to wear ill fitting uniforms designed for men, they’re starting to bring in items tailored for females.
It doesn’t mean that at all. You can still have the same uniform and same rules, but instead of a column for men and one for women, it’s all just generic.
So you have a skirt policy, and a long hair policy etc, but you just make it gender-neutral. Anyone can choose between skirt, slack trousers etc.
That sounds better, but in practise it usually means erasing the female options. Just look at schools.
Girl guides to supreme court attire is a mega thread drift, well played
To be fair it drifted at post 3 & went down the rabbit hole from there.
we’ve not had the reference to gamettes yet but that be in 15 - 20 post time.
I think the next stage is why women need specific clothing to men due to sizes & body shape so even if you make the uniform the same you have differences.
then hair style debate again, then a wider rabbit hole of is the ATC institutionally sexist with a “lads club” culture & “what does RAFAC do to oppose Violence Against Women & Girls”
& then Pep locks the thread…..
agreed
females in Blues trousers are not the same as the males, they are in “slacks”
This is basically what most of us do in practice.
Not necessarily, it depends on the build, some women will choose male trousers because the fit is better.
Some of the smaller male cadets fit into the slacks better too.
With Naval Rating Jumpers (a ‘Jumper’ in the navy is the jacket they wear in Square Rig), the smaller female cadets fit into the male jumpers better, the older female cadets require the female tailoring.)
That’s NOT what the judgment says, at all. But it was immediately misinterpreted for political effect.
I quoted the judgment above which made clear, in the second paragraph what they were doing.
Which in this case is exactly what the Girl Guides have done as their specific aims / charity documents provide a single sex space according to the exemptions in the equality act.
From both sides saying it meant more than it did & either over applying it or ignoring it accusing everyone of bias & bigotry
then there is the twisting of any article that references the ruling to that political group ends or to rage bait.
facts are
Girl guides provide a single sex membership group for young people utilising the equality act.
This exemption has been ruled that when referring to single sex spaces it is referring to biological sex which is bimodal.
Girl Guides have clarified their joining criteria to align with the legal interpretation of the exemption.
They’ve been respectful in the post, have been pragmatic in only applying to new joiners & are sympathetic to current members.
It seems a lot of people on wider social media just want to use this article to spin up the outrage & rehash their old arguments - none of them talk about the girl guides they just use it as a starting point.
