It’s a guidance not a law. As such if taken to court a judge must take it into account, but it does not automatically mean it is a clear case of breaking the law. Actual ruling and case law are going to be what defines how much teeth it has.
I retain hope that case law will find the guidance unlawful because of how violating enforcement would be. But as another commentator pointed out, damage is already being done as it is being adopted.
Exactly. Its been one of the most depressing things of the past year or so to see some very specific legal guidance (essentially that it is allowable to have strict single sex spaces excluding trans people if it is essential to achieve certain aims (like women’s refuges)) being used to enact sweeping bans by governments and companies out of reflexive ass covering.
Quokka@quokk.au 4 weeks ago
It’s a guidance not a law. As such if taken to court a judge must take it into account, but it does not automatically mean it is a clear case of breaking the law. Actual ruling and case law are going to be what defines how much teeth it has.
Arcanepotato@crazypeople.online 4 weeks ago
I retain hope that case law will find the guidance unlawful because of how violating enforcement would be. But as another commentator pointed out, damage is already being done as it is being adopted.
Womble@piefed.world 4 weeks ago
Exactly. Its been one of the most depressing things of the past year or so to see some very specific legal guidance (essentially that it is allowable to have strict single sex spaces excluding trans people if it is essential to achieve certain aims (like women’s refuges)) being used to enact sweeping bans by governments and companies out of reflexive ass covering.