That is untrue. Most cases are funded by many small donors like me, sick of women’s rights being denied. There are too many cases still being caused by Human Resources staff remaining wilfully ignorant of the Equality law they should be advising their senior managers about.

Why should women suffer by having their awards cancelled?
Do women not deserve their own awards now?

It is compatible. The Equality Act 2010 has not changed; the misunderstandings have been cleared up and the Stonewall Lore which you have been misled was the law has been exposed as a cruel illusion. Those tiny fringe groups suggesting that they can get it altered by going to the ECtHR are deluded.

There’s no requirement to do that impact assessment as THE LAW IS NOT NEW & HAS NOT CHANGED.
Where was the impact assessment for women’s services when the GRA2004 was passed?

He can use
• a mixed-sex lavatory: lots of venues have these; I can think of several.
• a toilet of his birth sex, though I do understand he might not want to.
• a disability WC (esp if he’s had any gender affirming surgery, often leading to poor outcomes).

Men & women must have single-sex spaces.

Trans people’s rights generally are protected under the Protected Characteristic of “Gender Reassignment.” Transmen now can legally benefit from the PC of “Pregnancy & Maternity,” which a “certificated” definition of the PC of “Sex” would not do.
Or don’t you want transmen to have that protection?

Mark was copied into correspondence from May onwards about this issue, so it is a very fair question to ask why this change was made at this point given the issues were self-evident 6 months ago.

The party has to hold lawful elections & Constitution Art. 2.7 which members voted to adopt, says that the EA holds sway. The quota in 2.5 was unlawful & has been corrected. But in trying to appease the aggrieved, they have over-provided for the groups covered by 2.6c & d; they’re still not happy.

You sound like a bigot.

“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep with any consenting adult who'll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But to force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?" What's wrong with saying that?

That often happens at lower courts and then the Supreme Court has to look carefully at all the written briefs that come in. I was astonished that Stonewall did not submit an intervention, especially as individuals can’t submit personal testimony, just points of law.

Don't be silly - of course it doesn't 'rewrite' the law. It interprets EA2010 as it was intended. People were (deliberately or misguidedly) misinterpreting the law, but feminists have been saying for many years this was wrong

I saw the same at John Lewis in Oxford; I haven’t been back to shop there since. (They also had lockable cubicle doors in the “Men’s Fitting Rooms” and merely curtains for the anyone’s Fitting Rooms.”)

It was given in the evidence.

No; only when the comments was so ludicrous that it cried out for my attention. You’re welcome.

Where’s my garlic 🧄 when I need it? 3/3.

Grassroots campaigners like WWWW have frequently trounced her & Scottish Ministers at all levels of the court system, as well as in Employment Tribunals; and yet her fellow-undead governing classes refuse to submit to the traditional silver bullet/stake through (what passes for) the heart… 2/3