Mumsnet inspired camping discussed in legal blog(39 Posts)
Hopefully the EHRC will finally wake up to the fact that they need to start thinking about this clash of protected characteristics
Arghh I did not read the title - it should read campaign
Perhaps you could explain why you think there is a clash?
I was intrigued by the Mumsnet camping OP!
It's all over the feminism section as to why there is a clash Jon but you know that already. Perhaps you could stop being so disingenuous.
I was also intrigued by the incongruous thread title!
There seems to be a potential clash between the right not to be be discriminated against on grounds of transgender and right not to be discriminated on grounds of sex (and I mean sex as defined by sections 11 and 212 of the Equality Act so biological women and those with GRC, not those just starting or going through transition)
So for example take a scholarship to encourage women onto STEM subjects. A transitioning transgender women, if prevented from entering, may argue that they are a women so if they are excluded it is indirect transgender discrimination.
A biological women, if overlooked in favour of transgender women, may argue that the purpose of the award is to overcome the barriers to STEM brought by years of social conditioning and opportunities denied to girls which they would have (and a transgender women brought up as a boy/man would have not had such barriers).
I suspect the clash will actually come with regard to single sex sports activities or service provision like hospital wards which women campaigned for years to achieve. If, as we see from the actions of the Girl Guides, the British Swim Association, and service providers like Top Shop, transgender women are permitted access to these spaces even if they have not physically transitioned. There are obvious concerns such as the social conventions about public nudity in, for example, sex-segregated swimming pool changing rooms.
Currently the campaigning by transgender activists fail to see that women may themselves have an indirect sex discrimination claim against a service provider who (by allowing in physically intact males into single sex locations) prevent them from using the service, because as biological women they have concerns for their privacy or safety.
There have been other clashes of protected characteristics, such as the Ladele (marriage registrar) case or the "gay cake" case. Ultimately the courts or Parliament will decide who will prevail. I cannot predict how this will play out
I'm disappointed now. Mumsnet inspired camping sounds amazing, I bet there'd be copious amounts of gin around the campfire.
Surely the answer is to stop this positive discrimination bullshit. All it dies is disguise ways in which our education system/business culture/society in geberal let's women down resulting in women being unable to attain these roles on their own merit. It's not feminism. It's not progress for women's rights. It's double think. It's an attempted cover up of the fact that women are regularly and systematically failed. It's patronising. And it's downright lazy. We could actually address the reasons why women fail to compete against there male counterparts or we could just make it look like women are making progress in this respect when they aren't.
Also I am extremely disappointed that this thread isn't about camping.
It's interesting that the report notes the changes to the GRA may be influenced by cost savings by reducing the need of proof.
One of the things I noticed at the weekend when reading through the submissions for the consultation, from professionals and individuals was the difficulty accessing medical, therapeutic and social support, due to lack of trained professionals and cost of treatments available on the NHS.
Part of me wondered if the changes were a cheap way of jumping to the end of any transition process ie appease trans people in attaining their end goal, without considering the wider impact on women and children
Justicewomen on what grounds and how could a woman have an indirect sex discrimination claim against a service provider In the circumstances you describe?
I only came across to the thread as I was excited at idea of MN feminist camping * leaves disillusioned and disappointed *
It also crossed my mind Left, that if they campaigned hard enough that it’s not an illness, it won’t be covered on the NHS. I hadn’t thought about the costs of the provision of the panel, though that’s relatively minor. But changing the GRA is a great way to virtue signal that you’re pro-trans whilst saving money in the short term.
I can almost hear the eyes rolling at jon66's comments!
Surely the clash will be solved in the say way as the clash between LGB characteristics and religious ones.
The LGB community and its supporters redefined how religious views can be expressed (in terms of offering goods/services) and I don't remember much discussion let alone campaigning here about what that meant for how clashes are handled.
And I guess that will just provoke posts about how those circumstances aren't exactly the same. And if you think that the differences are too great for it to be a valid comparison, then that's fine. Just remember it's also a perfectly valid POV, even though not yours.
That is an excellent blog, I think, thank you for sharing.
Positive discrimination may be a debatable issue.
Privacy and safe spaces are another. The rates of sexual violence in this country are high. I would like to get changed without trying to hide from male eyes. After rape or sexual violence I think women should be allowed to avoid male bodies. I do not think we should make it easier for low level sexual crime to occur.m
That policy might involve not allowing access to facilities until a (sensitive and private) discussion has occurred with a manager to identify that the individual is truly transgender and to explore ways in which the comfort of most users can be ensured.
I think this was a good point, and as ManFriday highlighted with Swim England, organisations are racing ahead with changes to their regulations without necessarily considering the full impact on end users.
Thanks. I think that could be shared on LinkedIn.
... although if by early stages of transition they mean still in possession of a penis, as I suspect they do, it does illustrate that there is a great deal of awareness work still to do.
@jon66 there was a very touching thread on here recently from a woman writing to her MP about self ID. She was a rape survivor. The thought of having a smear test made her so panicky she had to take a tranquiliser to be able to go through with it.
Now imagine that a man identifying as a woman turned up to administer her smear. This happened in autumn 2017 in the UK to a woman who had specifically requested a female HCP. She was not able to go through with her smear test.
Her right to medical care was being superceeded by the man identifying as a woman's right to go about their job. The woman could argue discrimination in this case.
That’s an interesting analogy and it is useful to think about how conflicting needs/wants are managed wrt other protected characteristics.
I think the bottom line here (please excuse the pun) is that our society has little appetite for mixed sex facilities when it comes to dressing/undressing and being in a state of undress. The human rights of dignity and privacy laying at the centre of this.
I think it wholly unacceptable to deny trans people dignity and respect through expecting them to use same-sex facilities designed for the sex they do not identify with (regardless of what their sexed bodies look like). Equally, I this wholly unacceptable to deny people dignity and respect through expecting them to use same-sex facilities with people with differently sexed bodies.
I am equally appalled when I hear claims from either camp that certain people’s dignity and privacy should trump another’s.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.