P

[P @P30189699]

@WomenOScotland The Supreme Court is clear what a woman is for the purposes of the EqA 2010. Women, download a copy of his letter and call his bluff. Go to nearest store, if the changing room is not female single sex as claimed, collect the evidence and submit a claim on the Small Claims track.

[P @P30189699]

@heinz_kiosk @No4167 🤣🤣So right.

[P @P30189699]

@garylfrancione TiMs claiming to be women dehumanise females by trivialising female into woman-face rather than immutable biological fact and tactics not dissimilar to those used during the Weimer Republic, to bully their unlawful access into female single sex spaces and enforced pronouns use.

[P @P30189699]

@SoniaRGallego It is unlawful for him to enter female single sex space. The Supreme Court has held that he is biologically male even if he holds a GRC and sex is birth sex. This is just fallacy, he never had the right to use the ladies because the law says he does not.

[P @P30189699]

@soniasodha This is dishonest grandstanding by Labour MPs. The EqA 2010 enacted by Labour, never gave TiMs access to female single sex facilities. Entry/use remains unlawful since 1 October 2010. Rather, women have been silenced by men unlawfully entering female spaces. This is not consent.

[P @P30189699]

@crowoniii Yet a doctor was struck off for having otherwise healthy legs removed.

[P @P30189699]

@Gaynotqueer1 The Supreme Court has ruled that transwomen are biological men. That is not about being cruel but a legal fact. As such, they never had the right to access single sex spaces for females under EqA. Women are different shapes, sizes, looks and colours but are biological females.

[P @P30189699]

@MPMacLachlan @rejserin Transwomen never possessed a right to be treated as a biological woman under the EqA 2010, the FWS judgment did not strip away any legal entitlements because they never had them. The law says they are biological men.

[P @P30189699]

@socksknitter The charitable status of the WI is women and girls and the Supreme Court has confirmed that sex means biological sex. They could continue to admit trans but would have to give up charitable status and the tax benefits that come with it.

[P @P30189699]

@LabourLGB The EqA 2010 was enacted by Labour under Blair, yet many of the signatories against EHRC guidance were Labour MPs. What has changed, because the law which underpins the guidance hasn't in those 16 years as confirmed by the Supreme Court?

[P @P30189699]

@StellarFox16 @rejserin For the purposes of the EqA 2010, a transwoman is a biological male. Under the act, their comparator sex, is a male not a female. Holding a GRC does not change biological sex, so born biologically male, die biologically male. That is settled law, courtesy of the Supreme Court.

[P @P30189699]

@palaver101 @xoxoBASHBACK This push that trans have lost rights is so untrue. They haven't lost anything because the law has never given them these rights. If the community was misled, then demand answers from those that lied, don't blame and abuse those that believe in biological reality.

[P @P30189699]

@palaver101 @xoxoBASHBACK And confirmed by the UK Supreme Court. A GRC does not change sex for the purposes of the EqQ 2010, and the comparator for a transwoman is a man not a woman.

[P @P30189699]

@jan_murray Bravo. Had a lumpectomy for breast cancer. Elective surgery for GI is a choice and very different from surgery which could be the difference between life or eventual death from untreated cancer.

[P @P30189699]

@LibVoice4Women @angusmacdlibdem Well that is welcome and refreshing from a sitting MP. If only more MPs could be honest that no rights have been lost because the right for TiM to access female facilities never existed under the EqA 2010 because they are biological males under the Act even if they hold a GRC.

[P @P30189699]

@soppystern How can you be a law maker when you appear unable to grasp that the UK has settled law from its Supreme Court that men in dresses remain male for the purposes of the EqA 2010 and cannot have access to female designated facilities. It is the law.

[P @P30189699]

@Enoughnow73 @moximc @soppystern @Keir_Starmer The law says if men with paper are let in, all men must be let in or discrimination. There is no half-way house. TiMs are male and their treatment is judged against males not females.

[P @P30189699]

@moximc @soppystern @Keir_Starmer Supreme Court has already ruled that neither the GRA or holding a GRC change a person's biological sex. Gender are feelings and a social construct not based on observable reality of sex at birth - male and female which is immutable.

[P @P30189699]

@soppystern @Keir_Starmer Under the EqA 2010 introduced by Tony Blair, the comparator for a TiM is a man not a woman. If TiM given access to female facilities, then all men must be given access otherwise discrimination against men regardless of how they present. The CoP are guidelines for that law.