You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Erin Reed / Anthony Reed II / @ErinInTheMorn / @ErinInTheMorning / @ErinInTheNight / _supernovasky_ / beholderseye / realitybias / AnonymousRabbit - post-op transbian Twitter/TikTok "activist" with bad fashion, giant Reddit tattoo. Former drug dealer with felony. Married to Zooey Simone Zephyr / Zachary Todd Raasch.
🐕 Changes are being made. Got a request? Shoot your shot.
💹 I am interested in growing the non-English section of the site. Discuss.
🖼️ Old attachments may be broken. I am rebuilding the local filesystem. They are not lost.
Erin Reed (@ErinInTheMorn) · Apr 7, 2023 · 12:45 PM UTC
Hey y'all. Things are getting bad for trans people in the UK - the UK is attempting to pass a "define sex" act like we've seen in a few very rough anti-trans states in the United States, such as Montana's SB458.
In the UK, this would have the added effect of adult bathroom bans.
There are few things I love more than Tony weighing in on developments in Bongistan (well, quite a lot of things, but I love them all more or less equally like I love my children). Tony is completely wrong, but that's not really a surprise if he's relying for information on people such as Colin / Katy Montgomerie, who has the IQ of a particularly crumbly house brick.
I weighed in on this area (clarifying the definition of sex under the Equality Act 2010) in the Mermaids thread, when they claimed it would "strip trans people of their rights" (it would not), and I recommend that post for some additional background:
Tony makes two claims, so let's take each in turn.
Tony said:
(1) the UK is attempting to pass a "define sex" act like we've seen in a few very rough anti-trans states in the United States, such as Montana's SB458.
There is no pending legislation that would "define sex", and
Sex is already defined under the Equality Act 2010.
The problem we have in the UK is that we have a particularly badly drafted law, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which introduced a notion of legal sex. As with a lot of things in this area of law, "legal sex" is really a description of what it does, not a term defined in the GRA itself. Infamously, "gender" itself is not defined in UK law.
The Equality Act defines a series of "protected characteristics", for the purposes of protection against discrimination. Importantly these aren't absolutes, and there is an unfortunate amount of ambiguity around sex. It defines sex as being "a man or a woman", but if a man has a Gender Recognition Certificate, then he is treated in law as being a woman.
The GRA was passed 9 years before same-sex marriage was legalised (Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013). I like to think of the GRA as the "Hayley Cropper Act", where the inoffensive MtF gets to marry his husband. This had been expressly illegal since Corbett v Corbett.
Now, I don't think this is a good reason for the GRA to exist, particularly as the Civil Partnership Act was also passed in 2004, allowing same-sex couples to effectively be married. But then you have all the mentalists in groups such as Press for Change, who were just as obsessed with external validation through a legal seal of approval as the most VaLId troons are today.
This leads to an interesting conundrum. Imagine you run a rape crisis centre. You wish to restrict your service to women only, as is explicitly allowed in the Equality Act. One day, an obvious man turns up, and says he's a woman. If he has a Gender Recognition Certificate, he has a right to access the women-only service, as he is — as far as the law is concerned — a woman. Asking if the man has a GRC is difficult, and may well be illegal. As the person running the rape crisis centre, you need to explicitly take an extra step to bar trans-identified men.
Currently, women who do not possess a GRC, and trans women who possess a GRC, have a prima facie right of admission to a ‘women only’ ward. To exclude all trans women, the service provider would have to take an additional explicit step subject to an additional proportionality assessment under Schedule 3 Paragraph 28. […]
On the other hand, including a trans woman in possession of a GRC would risk indirect sex discrimination against biological women, who may feel uncomfortable or unsafe with the presence of a trans woman.
In many circumstances it will be sensitive and impractical for service providers to take steps to find out whether a service user or customer has a GRC, and in some circumstances may risk the commission of a criminal offence (pursuant to s.22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, which prohibits disclosure of information about a GRC unless certain conditions are met
The current position therefore puts operators of ‘women only’ services in a difficult position whether or not they wish to exclude all trans women.
The problem here is that women have in practice lost out, as many service providers have been extremely hesitant to risk illegally discriminating against trans-identified men, and so have effectively chosen to operate a policy of self-ID that allows men into women-only spaces.
Phew, that was a lot, sorry. But as you can see, the interaction of the GRA 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 lead to a confusing situation. Which is why groups such as Sex Matters want the existing law to be clarified. The EHRC largely agrees: the current situation puts women at a disadvantage. This also includes trans-identified females with a GRC, as the current law means they are not protected on the basis of being biologically female.
So, in short: sex is already defined in UK law, but the argument is that the definition is not clear enough and so can be short-circuited.
Tony said:
(2) In the UK, this would have the added effect of adult bathroom bans.
As alluded to above, toilets are single-sex for the purposes of dignity and safety, and organisations that only provide "all-gender" toilets (unless they are lockable single rooms) risk sex discrimination. Clarifying the definition of sex under the Equality Act 2010 to mean biological sex would mean that providers can much more clearly state that toilets are single-sex.
Ultimately the problem in this entire area is that the concept of "legal sex", because it is so difficult to judge (you can't tell who has a GRC by looking at them), is the thin end of the wedge for any trans-identified person to use services that they should really be excluded from. That's TIFs in male-only bathhouses, and TIMs in women's book clubs, and whatever else you can think of.
I had the misfortune to see Tony’s ugly wide eyed mug on the Microsoft news feed this morning. This loser does mood lighting for his videos, so having never seen any I assume all of them are always colored red.
Within 2 minutes of seeing an article stating how Twitter is banning Substack links Tony decides and announces he's going to quit Twitter/People won't be able to see his important journalism because he refuses to not intentionally get his Tweets hidden by the algorithm. 'SO MAKE SURE TO SUBSCRIBE TO MY SUBSTACK!' [A] [A]
Alternatively Gaptooth could literally just not add their Substack link to every thread he makes in order to prevent it being suppressed/hidden, but that's too logical and Gaptooth refuses to post things unless he can shill his Substack under every tweet. FYI Tony: If what you're doings main focus is to make sure you make money, it's not actually activism.
Did you know that there is a Substack that you can subscribe to though? I never knew about this
Did he tweet about it, or mention it? If not, imho it should not belong in his thread and it's shitting up this thread, just post it in the general troon thread.
I guarantee you that his after dark (Erininthenight?) account will stay up even if he follows through on his empty threat. Is no one following that one?
I guarantee you that his after dark (Erininthenight?) account will stay up even if he follows through on his empty threat. Is no one following that one?
It's his sex pervert/flirting with barely legal mentally ill men account- if you wanna go deep cover to see that, by all means go for it, but he's got that shit locked down and vetted
I guarantee you that his after dark (Erininthenight?) account will stay up even if he follows through on his empty threat. Is no one following that one?
It's always been private, and has fewer than 80 followers, so I'd imagine any enterprising farmer attempting to follow would be spotted. I occasionally look to see which public accounts have replied to it, usually it's pretty quiet.
I know you were being rhetorical but seriously—it’s impressive. Part of me wonders if he had a fat injection there, gained a little weight, and caused his chin to expand. Now I’m wondering if it’s squishy or bony.
We have like 1 million different specialized troon threads, surely there's something for fitting for random news or happenings. Go to Tranny Sideshows or Tranny News Megathread for that.
Asking if the man has a GRC is difficult, and may well be illegal. As the person running the rape crisis centre, you need to explicitly take an extra step to bar trans-identified men.
and that causes no end of shit. was it sombody ogre who got a canadian rape crisis centre to be shut down? then over here Edinburgh Rape Crisis got taken over by a troon who said that as part of their rape counselling, women would have to unlearn their transphobia.
the amygdala, which is the lizard part of the brain that's protected us from threats for millennia, longer than Homo anything has existed, recognises sex at a hundred yards and reacts. its got nothing to do with transphobia, it kicks in as soon as you recognise someones sex and before you're close enough to clock details that may point to gender identity.
sorry for the way OT post. i'm quite drunk. i don't think i'd be a functioning adult without the female-specific care i've received so it provokes a reaction. its one of the most pernicious aspects of gender ideology imo. most people, thankfully, don't realise how important these services are. they don't think about what it would be like for a female rape/DV survivor to have to enter an enclosed space with a male and go into detail about what happened.
troons depend on people not thinking in detail about what they are saying. but no one would want their mother, daughter, sister, to end up at ERC rather than Beiras place.
at the end of the day, actions matter, not words, and i optimistically believe that the more Tone, Big Al, Zac, etc have a platform, the quicker people will peak and the sooner we can start undoing the decimation of women's rights they have advocated for.
Morgane Oger and Vancouver Rape Relief, though the situation there is a bit different. VRR won an important court judgment in 2003 that they could exclude trans-identified males from women-only services. Oger, a trans-identified male Vancouver councillor, had the city pull a grant from the shelter unless they opened up to TIMs. I believe VRR are still going, thankfully. (www.feministcurrent.com, archive.ph)
Ah, yes, Mridul Wadhwa. His case is interesting, in that when he applied for (and got) the job at Forth Valley Rape Crisis Centre, the centre’s application form specifically said that only (biological) women should apply, and they seem to have used the correct exceptions to exclude TIMs with a GRC.
Wadhwa did not and still does not have a Gender Recognition Certificate, and just lied about his sex. It’s unclear why the hiring panel at Forth Valley didn’t block his application, perhaps a combination of misunderstanding the Equality Act (and their own application form!) and institutional capture by transgenderism.
By the time he got the job at Edinburgh, I think we can safely say he got it because the panel believed that “trans women are women”.
I think Tony just can't afford the Wix subscription anymore, now that Elon Musk is LITERALLY fucking with his source of income, his Substack. When is Tony going to protest Elon Musk for these chuds registering a domainname and redirecting it to his thread, because Elon is deriving him of his income?
VaLId
[A]
[A]
