To think we should all boycott John Lewis until they respect their female employees

I think you’ve misread the Equality Act, but hey ho

Errr no one has inferred that @BernardBlacksBreakfastWine is a man. (I personally have no clue as to their gender. I doubt @DadJoke does either.)

I think you’ve misread the discussion.

Trans women are men.

It may well exclude all men. But we’re talking about whether it could exclude women (be it those assigned female at birth, or those who EA10 recognises as gender reassigned ie trans women).

Hate to break it to you, but the fact that you’ve heard a rumour that a website might use this kind of AI doesn’t mean it would be legal if they did.

Typical man thinks username

BernardBlacksBreakfastWine

Very clearly indicates

that he is a man with man things to say

pathetically sad

I think what it boils down to is, why can’t men just fucking FUCK OFF occasionally and leave women alone? Why do they have to be there going “Oh actually I have a tenuous right to be here that I’m going to assert against everyone’s wishes” like Alan Fucking Partridge?

I say this as a woman happily married to a good man, surrounded by, for the most part, really decent, intelligent men. But online, my god, they’re out in force.

The default is a case-by-case basis, but there are examples where all trans women can be excluded eg Beira’s Place.

Ah. Perhaps @DadJoke could come back to you on this one, as he thinks all trans women can be excluded from some organisations on some mysterious grounds that is definitely not because they’re men (though I’m not sure what criteria he’s going to apply here).

Men in* dresses

Here’s another example, I’m a woman who does not consent to sharing my female-only spaces with men. Any men. Men is dresses. Nice men. Men who bake cakes. Men you know. None of them.
Women are vulnerable to men and we do not need to explain WHY we refuse to hand over our spaces to them.

Here’s an example for you:

If a trans woman, we’ll call her Ms A for these purposes, has previously been found to have harassed the other users of a female only organisation, that organisation might be entitled to assert that it is legitimate and proportionate to exclude Ms A from membership.

In that example, the legitimate and proportionate response is to exclude Ms A. It would not be to exclude all trans women from joining the organisation or accessing its space.

I think it’s a basic survival instinct.

Because male feelings always trump women’s safety. Even women have a hardwired revulsion and aversion at prioritising women if it will upset some men.

Any male, who thinks his right to use women’s facilities, despite it clearly making at least some women uncomfortable, is more important than women’s rights to have spaces away from males, is the EXACT type of male who should not be anywhere near women or our spaces.

Entitled, deluded misogynists.

No, I do not acknowledge that trans women are not women, merely that single sex spaces can, if there is a legitimate reason and it’s proportionate they can be excluded.

MRAs, like all misogynists, hate trans women, but unlike gender critical people don’t make transphobia their whole personality.

Cross-post. Right, so you acknowledge that trans women aren’t women then, so they can’t go to the RCC.

Don’t think your fellow MRAs are going to agree with you…

I think currently they are put off, by simple convention. Now abusive men appear to have not even convention as boundaries.

Well, age is a protected characteristic, isn’t it? But, as you can see, just because something is on the list, it doesn’t mean it can never be acknowledged or used as a reasonable segregating tool. Sex is also a protected characteristic, isn’t it.

Adult child makes just as much sense as female man, btw.

The trouble is that the EA2010 does allow some interpretation about what’s reasonable and what’s not. That’s because it was written before people like you saw a way to use it to beat women (metaphorically, of course). Most people did not see this coming - this weas weaselly desperation to wilfully twist reasonable legislation until it becomes unreasonable,

So, come on then, who gets to go to your rape crisis centre? I’d be interested for the TWAW posters to say too. Be fun if they disagreed with you!

@BernardBlacksBreakfastWine Trans women are already in women’s loos - I am
defending their right to be there from people who want to exclude them - not “shoehorning them in.”

You absolutely did not address the of how single-sex loos would be enforced - you can’t because they are unenforceable.

Single sex loos simply do not make women “more safe.” They don’t stop abusive men, and put GNC women, trans men and trans women in greater danger.

RCC’s are entitled to exclude trans women altogether, have groups for gender critical women without trans women, or always be inclusive. All of those are chouces for the RCC. Providers should not be forced to include or exclude trans women and they are not.

Loos can very much be in that category.

Bit rich of you to suggest I’ve avoided a question. I explained very clearly that the general consensus and the shared understanding of a clear law would generally be sufficient. Did you miss that? Even now, in the world we currently inhabit, with blokes like you hell-bent on forcing men into women’s loos, it doesn’t happen much. So, yes, I think if everyone came back to their senses and there was clear legislation that couldn’t be misinterpreted by the likes of you, the system would work.

Of course it can’t be iron clad though 🙄 But why do you want women to be less safe when they could be safer?

However, you’ve said you go agree with single-sex spaces in some situations, so let’s try another situation then. How about… a rape crisis centre? Is that ok? Can women have that to themselves?

You’re aware that gender reassignment (for which neither a GRC nor any medical treatment is required) is a protected characteristic under EA10?

While identifying as a child is not a protected characteristic?

So your ‘analogy’ is nonsense?