The point of this misunderstanding is entirely to set up the legal backing for the idea that it would be lawful to exclude transgender women from women's spaces. If you have to actually be legally registered as female to be protected from discrimination on the basis of sex and therefore misogyny then automatically the vast majority of trans women are locked out. Not to mention every transgender child given that the GRA is only for 18+.
The debate was attended by so many, from different parties and nations. Yet all came to the same conclusion: conversion “therapy” is abuse. The overrepresentation of LGB+ MPs (the only openly trans MP, Jamie Wallis, was not present) shows that as much as the media attempt to divide us, we are a united community.
When you take away someone’s name, you take away their right to live their life peacefully: their right to work, to study, to interact with others, and even to consume products and services without having to share their personal (and medical!) history with complete strangers.
Put simply; GRC or not, the law states that discrimination against transgender people is not lawful in the vast majority of circumstances. (Which I only add because single-sex exemptions exist, but have never been tested in law)
According to Stella Creasy and the GRA; you don't need to get surgery in order to have your legal sex changed in the UK. This is all factually true and the result of the law working that way means that yes; some women have penises. You can disagree, you can say you think the law is bad, you can turn yourselves red with rage about it. But nonetheless, as it stands, the law in the UK states that some women have penises - and in a court of law you would not be able to simply ignore that.
This is important because if its true that women are more likely to be gender critical then it would support the claim of indirect discrimination based on sex and sexuality, which is what Bailey alleges happened. However the barristers supporting the defendants, Garden Court Chambers and Stonewall UK, were very quick to shut this idea down. Not only citing polls which disprove that anti-trans views are more common amongst women, such as one by YouGov, which aren't hampered by the selection bias of dedicated anti-trans groups. But also with a thorough cross-examination of supporting evidence too.
According to its 'about us' section, Survivor's Network was founded in 1990 by a group of female survivors of childhood sexual abuse to provide services that would support other female survivors. They were the first organisation in Brighton and Hove specifically focused on sexual abuse in childhood and the network has "grown considerably, while staying true to their activist roots".
Allison Bailey is alleging she was discriminated against by her employers, Garden Court Chambers, and also Stonewall UK. She believes that she has lost work because of Stonewall as she is a critic of 'Stonewall Law'. Which, in short, is the idea that Stonewall are misrepresenting the law, specifically the Equality Act, and disadvantaging cisgender women at the behest of transgender women.
The judge noted that Sanchez had been in receipt of threats of violence and other inimidating posts on social media. However it was ruled that no actionable breach of duty had taken place, though the university could have dealt with Sanchez's complaints in a "much better fashion".
Specifically, it was viewed as such because it did not require any medical intervention. It respected bodily autonomy! You could and can still obtain a new birth certificate without ever desiring hormones and surgery. Sure, you are still subject to the intrusive Gender Recognition Panel's whims, about to be set back a bunch of cash you probably couldn't afford, gatekept by a crap healthcare system to hell and have no non-binary options at all. But theoretically, its totally possible to be a woman with a penis, by law.
12Page 1 of 2