Woman and Sex, means biological sex.

Status
Not open for further replies.
More explanation needed!
There are different rules for the ratio of people to toilets based on the number the facility is expected to service.

The rules require fewer toilets for men where urinals are provided than for women, so it's not a case of removing the man and woman sign and replacing it with a "toilet" sign.
 
What he has done was a political mistake

Labour have done a reverse ferret and broken their manifesto

Stupid Labour have fallen in a Tory / Reform trap.
I think he realised it was a vote loser.
 
might it be that she was representing her side of the argument? i.e. that of a trans activist lawyer, who has written books and subsequently written articles suggesting the Supreme Court got it wrong.

I don't think so. Apparently, she represents both sides. If she didn't give the best advice to the businesses she represents, she would have a very short career and would end up being sued for professional negligence. But I would really like to know what she meant. It's a shame nobody else in the debate on Politics Live asked how what she was saying could be reconciled with Approved Document T.
 
I have to say that I take massive issue with this.

WTF is normal?

I hate that word! Like I hate the word nice...

I hate it anyway, but even more so because I have been asked all my life, mostly by kids but sometimes by ill-informed and insensitive adults too:

"Why can't you be (more) normal?"

I have CP (due to asphyxiation at birth) and since I was a kid, children and adults have laughed at me in the street and called me the S word, mocking me by talking in a strange voice, even though I don't, and grossly exaggerating my limp. Yes, you might say, you were born in the 60s and grew up in the 70s - things were different then. But these events, though less frequent, still happen. The only difference these days is, I talk back.

i believe everyone is different, everyone is unique.

Even if you are only talking about sexuality, it's not just about gay or straight.

To me, there is no such thing as normal.
When people say "normal" most times (but not always) they don't mean something bad, they simply mean what the majority is/does.
I understand it's upsetting for you, but try to look at it from another angle.
I too am guilty of saying "normal" sometimes, we're only humans.
 
I don't think so. She represents all sides of the argument in her cases. If she didn't give the best advice to the businesses she represents, she would have a very short career and end up being sued for professional negligence. But I would really like to know what she meant.
She has stated the Supreme Court have made a mistake and I haven't seen her write anything that supports the idea that a woman is defined by biology.

I therefore conclude that while she may represent anyone who comes to her and does her best, she clearly supports the side that says trans women are women.
 
She has stated the Supreme Court have made a mistake and I haven't seen her write anything that supports the idea that a woman is defined by biology.

Barristers often give legal advice which conflicts with their personal views. Her bio at chambers says she represents both sides including multinational businesses.
 
Barristers often give legal advice which conflicts with their personal views. Her bio at chambers says she represents both sides including multinational businesses.
what do you think she was giving when she was on your BBC program?
 
what do you think she was giving when she was on your BBC program?

It seemed to me that she was giving an opinion on how businesses would react to the ruling based on discussions she had already had with them. It's a shame nobody else in the debate on Politics Live asked how what she was saying could be reconciled with Approved Document T. Here is the show. The bit you need is actually very short. It starts at 10 mins 45 seconds and goes on to 13 minutes exactly. I will be interested to see what you think.

 
It seemed to me that she was giving an opinion on how businesses would react to the ruling based on discussions she had already had with them. It's a shame nobody else in the debate on Politics Live asked how what she was saying could be reconciled with Approved Document T. Here is the show. The bit you need is actually very short. It starts at 10 mins 45 seconds and goes on to 13 minutes exactly. I will be interested to see what you think.

can't watch BBC - sorry. But I did see her in an interview on ITV and another Barrister disagreed with her view. Beth Grossman was part of the case team.

 
Last edited:
can't watch BBC - sorry. But I did see her in an interview on ITV and another Barrister disagreed with her view. Beth Grossman was part of the case team.

Did they discuss the point we were discussing above about how businesses will react as regards the provision of toilets?
 
Did they discuss the point we were discussing above about how businesses will react as regards the provision of toilets?

Beth says she is wrong. My view - some poor pub owner is going to get sued for not providing a trans space and asking a trans person to use the toilet of their biological sex.
 
Beth says she is wrong. My view - some poor pub owner is going to get sued for not providing a trans space and asking a trans person to use the toilet of their biological sex.

Beth doesn't actually cover the point I am interested in. Robin makes the same analysis as on Politics Live i.e. that it will lead to a many more gender neutral toilets. If that was actually against the new building regs, then surely Beth would say so. But she doesn't. So, with two top barristers debating this issue and neither mentioning even the possibility that it might be against building regs, then I have to assume that is not the case. Although, I cannot actually reconcile why!
 
Beth doesn't actually cover the point I am interested in. Robin makes the same analysis as on Politics Live i.e. that it will lead to a many more gender neutral toilets. If that was actually against the new building regs, then surely Beth would say so. But she doesn't. So, with two top barristers debating this issue and neither mentioning even the possibility that it might be against building regs, then I have to assume that is not the case. Although, I cannot actually reconcile why!
You have so much faith in Barristers :LOL: I once had one send our confidential briefing to council, i.e. our "fight plan" to the other side, by mistake.

Does this help answer your question:

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top