you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]GConly 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The 2018 act is rationally connected to that. No less intrusive measure could be used and a fair balance has been struck.

"According to the research, trans persons amount to 1% of the population and it is very difficult to see how that cohort even assuming all are trans women, which is unlikely, would disproportionately impact on the over 50% of the population who are women who might wish to seek and be qualified for public board appointments."

It's actually about 0.2%. IIRC that 1% is from a poll where "do you feel like the other gender" or similar was asked

This person is an idiot.

[–]forwardback[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

But the (I submit) probable impact, of considering TWAW, would be OVER representation of TW, and UNDER representation of women. Absolutely impact the 50%. So much for "fairness". Net win: Men.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sure is convenient for men, as usual...