I'll try and make this short lol I meant JK hadn't done her homework
The argument put forward as per the transcript is male is male, female is female. Little distinction between gender/sex as concepts. They are immutable facts and cannot change, despite they, themselves, being social constructs and DNA evidence showing it's not quite that black and white in reality.
A man is a man because he can spunk, a woman because of egg (it's all the baby making & you can recognise on sight when you see them) - that's her definition. Her own argument against 'trans' effectively falls down because despite the specifics of trans man/woman, she ignores her own baby criteria (if I understood properly) if a man is impotent/woman unable to have kids - but upon reassignement surgery (taking the recognise on sight out of it) the lack of function in that case counts and makes it wrong.
There seemed to be no recognition or place for DNA alternatives/hermaphrodites either in her belief system.
Short and curlies - it's her choice to say man/woman based on what she sees ONLY and any avoidable offence isn't her problem, but most of her arguments were about 'fear factor' dirty men pretending to be women to pray on young girls in public toilets and all that bollocks - despite claiming her belief was a man couldn't become a woman, it seems like that wasn't something she actually argued or explained.
-----
Para's 78/79 + 81, 91
The Claimant contends that the belief is “important” because it is necessary to
support her sense of self, her feminism and political activism, belief in the
importance of single sex services, support for single sex education, use of
women only changing rooms and showers, old-age care, family planning and
maternity services, upbringing of children, women only services for the
vulnerable and her political online activism. In her evidence, she focused
particularly her contention that it is important that there can be some spaces
where particularly vulnerable women and girls, who have been subject to
sexual assault by men, are only open to women assigned female at birth. I
consider that on a proper analysis these are reasons why she considers that
her belief in the immutability of sex is important, rather than the belief itself.
Many of concerns that the Claimant has, such as ensuring protection of
vulnerable women, do not, in fact, rest on holding a belief that biological sex is
immutable. It is quite possible to accept that transwomen are women but still
argue that there are certain circumstances in which it would be justified to
exclude certain trans women from spaces that are generally only open to
women assigned female at birth because of trauma suffered by users of the
space who have been subject to sexual assault. This may be lawful under EqA
where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Many of the illustrations the Claimant relies on do not, in fact, rely on the belief that men can never become women; but on the analysis that there may be
limited circumstances in which it is relevant that a person is a trans woman or
trans man, such as when ensuring appropriate medical care is provided, which
takes proper account of trans status."
I do not accept that this analysis is undermined by the decision of the Supreme
Court in Lee v Ashers that persons should not be compelled to express a
message with which they profoundly disagreed unless justification is shown.
The Claimant could generally avoid the huge offense caused by calling a trans
woman a man without having to refer to her as a woman, as it is often not
necessary to refer to a person sex at all. However, where it is, I consider
requiring the Claimant to refer to a trans woman as a woman is justified to
avoid harassment of that person. Similarly, I do not accept that there is a failure
to engage with the importance of the Claimant’s qualified right to freedom of
expression, as it is legitimate to exclude a belief that necessarily harms the rights of others through refusal to accept the full effect of a Gender Recognition
Certificate or causing harassment to trans women by insisting they are men
and trans men by insisting they are women. The human rights balancing
exercise goes against the Claimant because of the absolutist approach she
adopts.
-----
Now she doesn't do this - but if you extrapolate that out, IF she had won, there would be legal argument for:
Defining someone's race/beliefs by skin colour.
All bald people with tattoo's must be Nazi's.
All Muslims are terrorists.
etc etc just because it's YOUR opinion.
I know that's going a little bit extreme, but JK's line here I guess is 'you can't force me what to think, she shouldn't lose her job when there's religious protection etc etc' As said, she didn't do her homework and fell for the headline and not the substance.
In my humble of course.
