The lawyer (who is also head of an anti-trans campaign org) is the same lawyer representing Sandie Peggie in that shitshow of a tribunal.
This is going to annoy a lot of 50+ year olds who got radicalized over the pandemic
She must have a charmed life if this stuff is her biggest worry. Being worried about someone hearing her unwrap sanitary items? She should fart loudly to cover her embarrassment.
Interesting. So being a bigot can be called out then without Rab Galbraith and pals suing you.
Was at a community centre/swimming pool with mixed changing rooms lately which I’m going to say would blow a certain creed of people’s minds.
Finally some common sense.
By the way, that engineer is a bit too handsome of a woman to be trying to denigrate trans women and make things harder for cis women who don’t confirm to feminine standards, that long hair is fooling nobody.
About time a Judge applied common sense and rejected the hysterical claims of these gender critical obsessed weirdos
> Ms Kelly then raised a grievance about the policy. She also complained that networks using gender-identity terminology, such as “cis,” created an atmosphere in which she felt unable to discuss issues relating to sex.
I’ve never understood why the word cis really annoys the bigots
She must have done something heinous to fail in a court case like that on bigot island
This was such a heartening read. So pleased to see the measured and sensible response from the tribunal, calling out the hysteria from that abhorrent For Women Scotland group and their cheerleaders.
It almost gives hope that the equally abhorrent Peggie will have her case thrown out, but sadly I fear that won’t be the case.
Your taxpayer money is funding this nonsense btw, just a reminder
>The judge said that while **it was accepted that men “by reason of their anatomy are able to urinate with less impact on their modesty than women**, there was no evidence beyond Ms Kelly’s own testimony that use of a toilet cubicle was inadequate to address the impact on their modesty.”
Sorry, not the point I know, but in what world does standing in front of a urinal with your winkie in your hand, next to a complete stranger who is doing the same, have ***less impact on your modesty*** than peeing in a private cubical?
So hang on, she originally raised the question of toilet policy, didnt like the policy they implemented, tried to sue the company, and lost, all without even experiencing a trans person in the same toilet at any point?
Not sure what is more accurate here: she was hoisted by her own petard, or she lost the fight against the strawman that she created.
What a piece of shit human being
>The judge said that **applying a biological-sex-only rule to control access to toilets would be “unworkable”, noting that “the biological sex of another toilet user is likely to be unknown and may be unknowable”**, particularly because birth certificates can be updated following the issue of a Gender Recognition Certificate.
>Judge Sutherland also said the statutory requirement to provide separate male and female toilets was concerned with “moral propriety”, which “does not necessarily depend upon a biological interpretation”, adding that **“moral propriety is a social construct and standards of decency change over time.”**
Boom. This is great to be publicly recorded. The bigots will be raging.
It was an entirely stupid complaint which consisted of a bunch of ‘what-if’ scenarios rather than any actual incident.
This will be escalated, merits or not, because JK Rowling will be involved by now.
Transphobes will be defended by hateful billionaires.
Good. Entirely in line with existing case law.
Points 284-287 are glorious. Wonderfully disassembled her argument.
>284. The claimant submitted that men and trans women are indistinguishable in practice and that they are readily discernible as men. She submitted that there is no practical difference between a trans woman and a male colleague who grow long hair, puts on some lipstick, dresses up in a skirt and tights (a 15 transvestite i.e. cross-dresser).
285. The claimant is aware that trans women believe their gender identity is at variance to their sex and whereas non-trans men (including transvestites) do not. The claimant is aware that beliefs, like motives and feelings, are “real and important” and indeed she relies upon these psychological traits in asserting 20 a philosophical belief and also in making legal complaints of discrimination.
286. The claimant is aware that trans women often undergo a process for the purpose of reassigning their gender identity (or their belief in it) which may entail medical advice, hormonal treatment, and/or endeavouring to live permanently as a female including modifying their appearance and 25 presentation. The claimant is aware that a transvestite i.e. cross dresser does not undergo such a process and is merely engaged in a temporary modification of their appearance.
287. It is not therefore accepted that the claimant believes that trans women are indistinguishable from men in practice.
Are these special toilets? Unique ones without cubicles? If not there’s no problem.
Go into a cubicle, shut the door, you’ve got your privacy.
I’m finding it hard to understand what this sentence means: “It ruled that a male user of women’s toilets would also object to a person of the opposite sex being present, meaning any loss of privacy was not because of her sex.”.
Can anyone help explain/ reword this part to me?
I’m thinking…the opposite sex to “a male user of women’s toilets” would be a female, right? (Or maybe I’ve got that wrong?) So they’re saying, a male, using a women’s bathroom, would object to a female using the women’s bathroom? I don’t see why they would but OK, if accepting that, how does this relate to the next part of the sentence: “…meaning any loss of privacy was not because of her [the claimant’s] sex.” I really, really don’t get what this means.
There’s no pleasing the Transvestigators: Special Toilet Patrol.
If they want people using their birth gender toilets, you’ll have big hairy manly-looking bearded trans dudes going into womens toilets because they were born with a vag – and they’ll bitch about trans people in womens toilets.
But you can’t convince them to just let people pee in their gender assigned space because they go feral “THAT’S NOT A ‘REAL’ WOMAN” blah blah blah.
So, what, you want to build a seperate facility for trans folks specifically? Okay then – YOU pay for it, YOU go around installing and plumbing in Trans-Only toilets.
They don’t like THAT either.
So now what? You want them to piss outside?
The reality is that it isn’t about toilets – it’s about trans folks daring to exist in their perception.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Good.
“Ms Kelly, who describes herself as holding gender-critical beliefs, has said she will appeal.”
Let me guess, the appeal will be paid for by a certain billionaire children’s author?
Glad to see her get suplexed over this. Not looking forward to her wasting everyone’s time on an appeal when there’s other stuff the courts could be concerned with, but I hope to see a swift and similar resolution to “Bolt, ya fanny”.
27 comments
All her points were insane so glad they were dismissed
You can read the judgment [here](https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/b-m-kelly-v-leonardo-uk-ltd-8001497-slash-2024).
The lawyer (who is also head of an anti-trans campaign org) is the same lawyer representing Sandie Peggie in that shitshow of a tribunal.
This is going to annoy a lot of 50+ year olds who got radicalized over the pandemic
She must have a charmed life if this stuff is her biggest worry. Being worried about someone hearing her unwrap sanitary items? She should fart loudly to cover her embarrassment.
Interesting. So being a bigot can be called out then without Rab Galbraith and pals suing you.
Was at a community centre/swimming pool with mixed changing rooms lately which I’m going to say would blow a certain creed of people’s minds.
Finally some common sense.
By the way, that engineer is a bit too handsome of a woman to be trying to denigrate trans women and make things harder for cis women who don’t confirm to feminine standards, that long hair is fooling nobody.
About time a Judge applied common sense and rejected the hysterical claims of these gender critical obsessed weirdos
> Ms Kelly then raised a grievance about the policy. She also complained that networks using gender-identity terminology, such as “cis,” created an atmosphere in which she felt unable to discuss issues relating to sex.
I’ve never understood why the word cis really annoys the bigots
She must have done something heinous to fail in a court case like that on bigot island
This was such a heartening read. So pleased to see the measured and sensible response from the tribunal, calling out the hysteria from that abhorrent For Women Scotland group and their cheerleaders.
It almost gives hope that the equally abhorrent Peggie will have her case thrown out, but sadly I fear that won’t be the case.
Your taxpayer money is funding this nonsense btw, just a reminder
>The judge said that while **it was accepted that men “by reason of their anatomy are able to urinate with less impact on their modesty than women**, there was no evidence beyond Ms Kelly’s own testimony that use of a toilet cubicle was inadequate to address the impact on their modesty.”
Sorry, not the point I know, but in what world does standing in front of a urinal with your winkie in your hand, next to a complete stranger who is doing the same, have ***less impact on your modesty*** than peeing in a private cubical?
So hang on, she originally raised the question of toilet policy, didnt like the policy they implemented, tried to sue the company, and lost, all without even experiencing a trans person in the same toilet at any point?
Not sure what is more accurate here: she was hoisted by her own petard, or she lost the fight against the strawman that she created.
What a piece of shit human being
>The judge said that **applying a biological-sex-only rule to control access to toilets would be “unworkable”, noting that “the biological sex of another toilet user is likely to be unknown and may be unknowable”**, particularly because birth certificates can be updated following the issue of a Gender Recognition Certificate.
>Judge Sutherland also said the statutory requirement to provide separate male and female toilets was concerned with “moral propriety”, which “does not necessarily depend upon a biological interpretation”, adding that **“moral propriety is a social construct and standards of decency change over time.”**
Boom. This is great to be publicly recorded. The bigots will be raging.
It was an entirely stupid complaint which consisted of a bunch of ‘what-if’ scenarios rather than any actual incident.
This will be escalated, merits or not, because JK Rowling will be involved by now.
Transphobes will be defended by hateful billionaires.
Good. Entirely in line with existing case law.
Points 284-287 are glorious. Wonderfully disassembled her argument.
>284. The claimant submitted that men and trans women are indistinguishable in practice and that they are readily discernible as men. She submitted that there is no practical difference between a trans woman and a male colleague who grow long hair, puts on some lipstick, dresses up in a skirt and tights (a 15 transvestite i.e. cross-dresser).
285. The claimant is aware that trans women believe their gender identity is at variance to their sex and whereas non-trans men (including transvestites) do not. The claimant is aware that beliefs, like motives and feelings, are “real and important” and indeed she relies upon these psychological traits in asserting 20 a philosophical belief and also in making legal complaints of discrimination.
286. The claimant is aware that trans women often undergo a process for the purpose of reassigning their gender identity (or their belief in it) which may entail medical advice, hormonal treatment, and/or endeavouring to live permanently as a female including modifying their appearance and 25 presentation. The claimant is aware that a transvestite i.e. cross dresser does not undergo such a process and is merely engaged in a temporary modification of their appearance.
287. It is not therefore accepted that the claimant believes that trans women are indistinguishable from men in practice.
Are these special toilets? Unique ones without cubicles? If not there’s no problem.
Go into a cubicle, shut the door, you’ve got your privacy.
I’m finding it hard to understand what this sentence means: “It ruled that a male user of women’s toilets would also object to a person of the opposite sex being present, meaning any loss of privacy was not because of her sex.”.
Can anyone help explain/ reword this part to me?
I’m thinking…the opposite sex to “a male user of women’s toilets” would be a female, right? (Or maybe I’ve got that wrong?) So they’re saying, a male, using a women’s bathroom, would object to a female using the women’s bathroom? I don’t see why they would but OK, if accepting that, how does this relate to the next part of the sentence: “…meaning any loss of privacy was not because of her [the claimant’s] sex.” I really, really don’t get what this means.
There’s no pleasing the Transvestigators: Special Toilet Patrol.
If they want people using their birth gender toilets, you’ll have big hairy manly-looking bearded trans dudes going into womens toilets because they were born with a vag – and they’ll bitch about trans people in womens toilets.
But you can’t convince them to just let people pee in their gender assigned space because they go feral “THAT’S NOT A ‘REAL’ WOMAN” blah blah blah.
So, what, you want to build a seperate facility for trans folks specifically? Okay then – YOU pay for it, YOU go around installing and plumbing in Trans-Only toilets.
They don’t like THAT either.
So now what? You want them to piss outside?
The reality is that it isn’t about toilets – it’s about trans folks daring to exist in their perception.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Good.
“Ms Kelly, who describes herself as holding gender-critical beliefs, has said she will appeal.”
Let me guess, the appeal will be paid for by a certain billionaire children’s author?
Glad to see her get suplexed over this. Not looking forward to her wasting everyone’s time on an appeal when there’s other stuff the courts could be concerned with, but I hope to see a swift and similar resolution to “Bolt, ya fanny”.
Comments are closed.