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

The Haldane judgment get round the requirements for legitimacy and proportionality @Ereshkigalangcleg. Soz.

But basically, the effect of a GRC would not be to "change a person's sex" with relation to the Equality Act, if all you had to do already was claim the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to be considered "female" (or male obvs) under the protected characteristic of sex.

In most cases female sex in the EA refers to biological sex, but this judgment states that it also refers to those biological males with a GRC. Only those males.

I can elaborate why this demonstrates that, if anyone is not clear.

It may be my opinion that single sex spaces aren't based on "gender". It's not my opinion that without a GRC the current legal position is that "trans women" are men for the purpose of the protected characteristic of sex, which is the only legal basis for protected single sex spaces. It's a fact that recent judgments in English and Scottish law have found this to be the case.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/statement-following-lady-haldanes-opinion-petition-women-scotland-ltd-judicial

"We welcome this judgment which confirms that the effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate is to change a person’s legal sex, including for the purposes of the Equality Act."

In your opinion.

Without a GRC they're still just men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Single sex spaces rely on sex as a protected characteristic, not "gender".

You know gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, right?

I think it is widely understood that JL could exclude male people from the toilets and changing rooms using the exceptions under the EA2010. JL chooses not to.

Just like Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had the option to use the exceptions. They actually published the job description that mentioned the exceptions. They then chose, with full knowledge, to hire a male person with a gender identity of 'female' for the role. Which I suspect, created a case for discrimination for any other male to claim they were unfairly excluded.

I’m not sure where the ‘of course’ comes from there. I think you’re trying to imply that it necessarily follows that ‘well-being and dignity’ require that trans women should be excluded. It does not follow.

There needs to be a legitimate reason for the specific exclusion, and additionally that needs to be proportionate.

And few of the women on here shy away from being confrontational so I’m not sure what your final sentence means.

..but it is of course legitimate on the grounds of safety if not well-being and dignity?

The problem surely is that most women and girls don't wish to be confrontational or labelled?

Thing is @ElleWoods15 that it has to be proportionate to exclude any males. Once you exclude any males you can exclude all. It really is misunderstood but the same justification works for all males. Allowing transwomen is technically discrimination against other males.

No, @BrightDog , you are getting it round the wrong way.

Trans women have a right to be in women’s loos, as @DadJoke has said.

There is an ability (which the EHRC has mentioned in its guidance) and which utilises carve outs in the EA10 to exclude trans women from single sex spaces- but only where it is legitimate and proportionate to do so.

So what you are looking to do when you want trans women excluded from single sex spaces is to utilise that carve out. In which case the exclusion must be legitimate and proportionate.

Trans Women do NOT have a right to be in female-only spaces:

'Special exceptions exist in the Equality Act to allow service providers to lawfully exclude people born male from female-only spaces. All males can be lawfully excluded, even members of the male sex who self-identify as women and even males who have legally transitioned to female.'

Excerpt from: https://fairplayforwomen.com/changing_rooms/ on the Equality Act .

I believe that most transwomen do not WANT to be anywhere where their presence would make (potentially) vulnerable women uncomfortable in order to feel affirmed.

The fact that transwomen may have been using female spaces without challenge A. doesn't make it legal and B. probably says more about how intimidated women and girls may feel challenging someone they believe to be male.

Frankly, you're being so quick to jump to the 'transphobia' trope is typical and part of the problem, although I imagine it is very much by design. Many will simply feel too intimidated to challenge a transwoman, especially in a state of undress.

@Dumbledoreslemonsherbets · 29/08/2024 18:53
The last time I was in jl the toilets were labeled women and men. No information that they were all mixed sex. That's consumer fraud. It's like saying a sandwich is nut free whilst in fact having nuts in.

Felicitous choice of analogy, in the circs.

"I mean they call them "trans women", not me. I never use that term unless I'm responding to someone who has."

This is me too. If I have to, I will use 'transwoman'. I used to use it until I realised where the language that people politely used was used to directly harm female people.

SoundTheSirens, some of us have made decisions that allow us to continue on this board.

So as to not be deleted, I have chosen to use 'male people' and 'female people'' This is due to having posts with evidence deleted because someone was claiming that it was transphobic to use woman / girl or man / boy. It is fucking cumbersome. It keeps it also impersonal (hence, not deleted).

On the other hand, it has been very useful in making it very clear the sex of the person I am referring and just how obfuscating the language demands are.

I have had so many posters tell me just how offensive my posts are because I call male people, 'male people'. Sometimes they slip up and accuse me of using the term 'man' when I clearly have not. That shows more about them than it does me.

I don't think those who make those accusations realise just how much they undermine their own arguments and prompt those reading along to think ' .... oh, hang on....'.

There's actually a poll which shows that dependent on region between a quarter and a third of the population in England think a "trans woman" is a biological female person identifying as a man.

Oh I agree overall, my comment definitely wasn’t intended as a dig at your post, more a general musing but your quote was a handy “hook” to hang it on. In general I prefer to refer to TW as men because that’s what they are (and there’s at least one post on this thread that showed how easy it is for people to be confused between which terms are for the men-who-want-to-be-women and vice versa).

I don't use either term. Here, and elsewhere I risk sanction for wrongthink I use MTF trans person, elsewhere (and by choice) I am clearer. I think "transwomen" isn't much better than "trans women", personally. They aren't women in any sense.

I mean they call them "trans women", not me. I never use that term unless I'm responding to someone who has.

It's really as simple as that. A "trans woman" for me, is just a variety of male person. Aka men and boys.

At the risk of sounding petty - but it actually isn’t, because as we’ve seen language, and the precise use of it, is important - it’s why I don’t insert a space between “trans” and “woman/women” when I write TW in full. “Trans” in that particular context is not acting as a descriptor of a subset of women, it is part of a noun naming a specific subset of men.

Transwomen are men. There is no value judgement in calling a man a man, it’s a simple biological fact. I don’t hate men (I’m married to a perfectly nice one), but I do recognise that as a sex class, men pose a threat to women. That’s the whole concept behind single-sex spaces in the first place.

The threat that men pose is based on the fact the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman and, in the penis, has a built-in weapon. These are physical, biological factors. Sex is a physical, biological matter. Single-sex spaces are in existence because of these physical, biological differences between men and women.

If a man “identifies as a woman”, be that because of crippling dysphoria, an opportunity to act out a fetish, a response to internalised homophobia on realising they’re gay or just for shits and giggles, it doesn’t change the fact they’re a man. Male. Biologically different from women. Having SRS and taking hormones doesn’t change the fact they’re a man. Our sex is coded in every cell of our body.

It's really as simple as that. A "trans woman" for me, is just a variety of male person. Aka men and boys.

Transwomen are men. There is no value judgement in calling a man a man, it’s a simple biological fact. I don’t hate men (I’m married to a perfectly nice one), but I do recognise that as a sex class, men pose a threat to women. That’s the whole concept behind single-sex spaces in the first place.

The threat that men pose is based on the fact the average man is bigger and stronger than the average woman and, in the penis, has a built-in weapon. These are physical, biological factors. Sex is a physical, biological matter. Single-sex spaces are in existence because of these physical, biological differences between men and women.

If a man “identifies as a woman”, be that because of crippling dysphoria, an opportunity to act out a fetish, a response to internalised homophobia on realising they’re gay or just for shits and giggles, it doesn’t change the fact they’re a man. Male. Biologically different from women. Having SRS and taking hormones doesn’t change the fact they’re a man. Our sex is coded in every cell of our body.

“Gender identity” =/= sex, and attempts to conflate the two are unhelpful. The GRA itself recognises that any change is merely a legal fiction.

There is no inherent right for any man, however he identifies, to enter single-sex spaces designated as female in the UK. Being prevented from doing so does not mean he is banned from being able to participate in public life, as he can use the spaces designated for his sex (this also applies to sports etc). As soon as he does enter a space meant for women, that space becomes mixed sex.

When considering people who claim a gender identity which differs from their sex, service providers may choose not to enforce the “legitimate and proportionate” exclusion granted them under the EA2010, as is their right; however anyone who feels strongly that there is a valid reason for sex-segregated spaces may campaign for them to be reinstated / introduced, as is their right. The writer of the letter OP posted feels strongly that there should be SSS for JL staff and has raised awareness of their lack accordingly; many women here (myself included) agree with her.

Certain cohorts of women being excluded from taking a full part in society if they have nowhere free from the opposite sex to undertake activities where we are more vulnerable would certainly seem like a legitimate and proportionate aim, especially if the situation without the legal exclusion is that men have, ipso facto a choice of two spaces whereas women who want or need single-sex now have none. I appreciate though that there is a minority of posters here who think that women’s rights don’t matter compared to additional trans demands, so are quite happy with that state of affairs, regardless of whether that woman is, for example, from a minority faith. They are quick to shout “transphobia” while conveniently ignoring their own Islamophobia and antisemitism, quite apart from their misogyny (internalised or otherwise).

I read a horrifying fact the other day. A victim of a brutal gang rape in India who remained unconscious until she died of her horrific injuries still flinched in her unconscious state when a man spoke near her - such was the imprint the trauma left on her body.

That's chilling and heartbreaking

So you are attempting to shame women and young girls who feel uncomfortable alone with an unknown male in an enclosed space for any reason including rape, domestic violence, trauma or just boundaries of privacy?

I read a horrifying fact the other day. A victim of a brutal gang rape in India who remained unconscious until she died of her horrific injuries still flinched in her unconscious state when a man spoke near her - such was the imprint the trauma left on her body.

Gender is self declared and often imperceptible to the beholder - sex is immutable and almost always very obvious to bystanders.

Why do you think women should be denied women only spaces if they want them?

That use of the word ‘bigoted’ is incorrect btw.

Would you also agree that a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is no longer needed for any male person to declare that they have a transgender identity that is 'female' sexed?