Wrote the Readers' Editor in her first column in this unique role, back in February 2020. What a load of tosh. Here's my complaint about Sam Fowles' column on THAT Supreme Court decision
I have to admit I gave up on The Guardian’s self-justification for publishing a manifestly factually incorrect piece. But we should all start saying the term “cis” is hate speech against actual women. It was invented by the trans activists to try to relegate real women to a subcategory of women. We are not a subcategory. We are the ONLY kind of women. Men claiming to be women, like the author of the offensive piece, are fake women.
I don't know about other people but I personally was left baffled by the details of the argument. My own take on it is that the court found that trans appeals to human rights giving trans people access to womens only spaces is too abstract.
That some more distinctions are required, not least by lesbians.
But I could not remotely discuss what Julie or the Guardian Readers Editor wrote. My understanding is that Mr Fowles thinks that the judgement shows that the Equality Act of 2010 needs amending, whereas Julie thinks that the supreme count's conclusions show that the act is working to maximize justice as far as we currently know how to do this.
Lesbians she thinks, are now properly protected, to be able to have the interactions with each other that they want.
So now trans people will be campaigning to have the act amended. The devil will be in the detail.
You are over-thinking this. Humans come in two sexes, male and female. The Equalities Act means actual biological women when it uses the word woman. The category of women does not include men. They are the other category.
Thanks for your reply. I was trying to locate where the trans argument goes wrong. But also that I couldn't follow the legal argement. You apparently think that the average Joe like me doesn't need to. Maybe.
I have to admit I gave up on The Guardian’s self-justification for publishing a manifestly factually incorrect piece. But we should all start saying the term “cis” is hate speech against actual women. It was invented by the trans activists to try to relegate real women to a subcategory of women. We are not a subcategory. We are the ONLY kind of women. Men claiming to be women, like the author of the offensive piece, are fake women.
Sad. But then the only thing that would surprise me in a Guardian editorial judgement is finding a coherent and accurate sentence.
How unkind you are Julie! Unkind to Zippy and George comparing them to Guardian writers!!
I don't know about other people but I personally was left baffled by the details of the argument. My own take on it is that the court found that trans appeals to human rights giving trans people access to womens only spaces is too abstract.
That some more distinctions are required, not least by lesbians.
But I could not remotely discuss what Julie or the Guardian Readers Editor wrote. My understanding is that Mr Fowles thinks that the judgement shows that the Equality Act of 2010 needs amending, whereas Julie thinks that the supreme count's conclusions show that the act is working to maximize justice as far as we currently know how to do this.
Lesbians she thinks, are now properly protected, to be able to have the interactions with each other that they want.
So now trans people will be campaigning to have the act amended. The devil will be in the detail.
Do I understand correctly I wonder.
You are over-thinking this. Humans come in two sexes, male and female. The Equalities Act means actual biological women when it uses the word woman. The category of women does not include men. They are the other category.
Thanks for your reply. I was trying to locate where the trans argument goes wrong. But also that I couldn't follow the legal argement. You apparently think that the average Joe like me doesn't need to. Maybe.
Sometimes bigotry is merited.
Heterosexual men like Alex Drummond are desperate to be women. So desperate they actually imagine they are lesbians.