To be shocked by a transwoman guest on Jeremy Vine today asking a female caller what sex she is - and whether she’s “been tested?”

Nothing is going to “answer your points” because your whole argument is based on the precept that people can change sex, which is both materially and legally false. But please continue, as it’s illuminating for those reading along.

Of course it doesn’t answer my points at all. Protecting institutions backs (because of challenges with practical enforcement) and the fact that some transwomen will slip under the radar is in no sense a defence of implementing illogical, arbitrary, and unlawful guidance.

it doesn’t say any of this lots of the usual about how trans women are violent predators, and trans people’s identities aren’t valid so I think you are reading the wrong thing or making stuff up.

Her posts starts off with lots of stuff about how no one in real life thinks TWAw.

She then proceeds to call them “TIM”.

Her post ends with statements such as:

“What I am surprised by is the number of women who having seen the hate, vitriol and violence…still maintain that this is still just about quiet, gentle, vulnerable, 'feminine' men who just want to pee.”

“I haven't heard or read of a single woman who wants transpeople erased or wishes harm or violence towards them. The same cannot be said of the trans position against women.”

So making stuff up? Not me. Let’s leave it there.

I think this means you didn’t understand it then, because it answers your points completely. Perhaps not in the way you would like, but it sums it up. I don’t think there’s any point 8n me (or anyone else) trying to explain it any more because for whatever reason you don’t seem to be getting it. Have a good afternoon.

Edit: it doesn’t say any of this lots of the usual about how trans women are violent predators, and trans people’s identities aren’t valid so I think you are reading the wrong thing or making stuff up.

Or , rather, the guidance isn’t arbitrary because it’s necessary to protect providers’ backs because they won’t do genital checks , so they just have to judge on appearance , and that means some trans women who pass can also get away with it.
And then , yeh, lots of the usual about how trans women are violent predators, and trans people’s identities aren’t valid, but none of these opinions are anti trans, and how women who support trans people are just capitulating to male violence, etc, etc, etc.

so yeh, a) not at all coherent, b) not relevant to the analysis in my posts and c) not something I felt was worth commenting on. But there you go, I’ve done it anyway.

Yes I saw it. It was only of very tangential relevance to my posts which were focused on drawing attention to the illogic/ inconsistency in how the EHRC is seeking to implement the SC judgement, so I really had nothing to say on it.

(Her post pretty much boiled down to- she knows lots of people and none of them think TWAW. The guidance isn’t a problem because it won’t be enforced so people who “pass” can get away with it (or something like that?). And then asserting her opinion that “trans activists” are awful and we should all just get on with implementing this guidance. So yeh, not really relevant to the conversation I was interested in having which was about the lawfulness of the EHRC guidance and how it has erroneously interpreted/ is seeking to implement the SC).

There was a very clear analysis by @SaveMeFromHumanity at 07.29. It was in reply to one of your posts so should be in your notifications if you can’t otherwise find it.

Ahh I’ve got it! You’re the comedy element trying to cheer us all up by giving us a good giggle. Thankyou for your service. It’s appreciated

I am absolutely interested in good faith analysis. Very concerned about it in fact.

Yes I made the posts so people can read them.

I don't believe that you are interested in any kind of good faith 'analysis' and anyone who reads your posts can decide for themselves whether they agree or not.

The EA is an act discussing what is legitimate and what is illegitimate discrimination based on needs.

It focuses on the needs of groups of people. This guidance does that.

This discussion is purely sparpling by now.

Yes, I perfectly understand that your intentions were to belittle/ insult/ accuse and because I didn't take the bait you decided to do it more directly. I don't think it does much for your case, but in any case I'm not particularly interested in mud slinging.

I'm interested respectful analysis of the EHRC guidance/ SC judgement.

The provisions in the Statutory Guidance can be clearly shown to apply inconsistent and arbitrary logic, for the purposes of maximising exclusion of gender non-conforming people from public services.

They are therefore not consistent with the SC judgement and not lawful.

No. I am saying that we - that is the posters who have tried to clarify the interim guidence - have more chance of teaching quantum physics to a chicken than getting you to understand the guidence. This is because you are willfully misunderstanding it, obfuscating in an attempt to create confusion (when it is in actual fact very simple) and frankly sealioning.

I don't think you're drawing attention to what you think you're drawing attention to.

But still #letthemspeak

Of course, the law is the law as determined by the SC judgement.

The draft guidance has no statutory force and can be very clearly shown to be unlawful for reasons explained. It's very important to draw attention to this in the current climate.

None of us can help you Lost. Maybe you should read the whole Supreme Court judgement and then wait for the full version of the guidence from the EHRC and read that too? TBH, the law doesn't depend on you understanding it, it is the law regardless of your confusion.

Of course it is. It's completely inconsistent.

According to the EHRC guidance, it is always unlawful and discriminatory to exclude some but not all individuals from services that cater to persons of the opposite birth sex, on the basis of gender differences/ perceived sex/ transition.

However, it is conversely not always unlawful and discriminatory to exclude some but not all individuals from services that cater to persons of the same birth sex, on the very same basis of gender differences/ perceived sex/ transition.

In the first provision it is declared that gender differences/ perceived sex/ transition can never, in any circumstances, be seen as a legitimate basis/ relevant factor in discriminating between people when in comes to the provision of single sex services (i.e. if you allow trans women into female toilets, you have to allow all birth sex males, otherwise it is inevitably discrimination - no exceptions, no contextual factors, nada).

In the second provision it is declared that - oh actually no, gender differences/ perceived sex/ transition can sometimes, in some circumstances be a legitimate basis/ relevant factor in discriminating between people of the same birth sex when in comes to the provision of single sex services (even if the service is for females, you don't have to allow all birth sex female, you can still exclude trans men).

So which is it?

These logics are not consistent, but they very effectively enable the exclusion of trans people from toilets. This is not a legitimate aim.

The second provision aligns with the judgement, the first provision does not.

It's not contradictory, or arbitrary. As has been explained to you.

So if there is a sexual assault support group for men who have been sexually assaulted by women, and a transwoman who has had so many extreme body modifications that he passes as a woman, such that his presence will trigger the survivors there, then he too can be excluded. See? Totally fair.

And, yes, that means it'll ultimately come down to 'passing privilege' but that's an unfortunate side effect of the aggressive overreaching of the trans movement because, as many have said, most women know TW have been using the women's for years, many of us have known we were queuing with a man, standing at the sinks next to a man etc but, as long as they were behaving appropriately and respectfully (and every TW I've personally encountered in this way has) we were prepared to be tolerant and let it go.

I think that quite a number of them aren't actually interested in even attempting to pass, when asserting their determination and perceived right to use women's facilities.

A lot of them don't try to amend their voices or even bother to shave off their beards - which is something that even the majority of 'standard' men who are not claiming to be anything other than men do on a daily basis.

I wonder if they see it as an affront to their self-importance and assertion of rights that, if they have to make the effort to pass, that somehow puts them on the back foot, having to compromise, and delegitimises their inherent self-belief that they should be entitled to whatever they want without question.

Also 'passing' will cause them to go under the radar and thus not get them the attention or the 'I'm the victim in this' publicity that so many of them seem to crave.

The logic behind it is NOT contradictory or arbitrary!

@SaveMeFromHumanityYou have eloquently absolutely hit the nail on the head. I also made the point that men who passed as women have always been kindly tolerated (ie not challenged) in women’s loos, because essentially women are often empathetic and understanding.
I think the men in rape centres, men insisting that they were women and we were now “cis women”, men who had gone through puberty competing against women in sport (and taking medals) that ruined it for the truly “female” men who have always met with our understanding.

It was also the insistence that a third space for trans was discriminatory.

They pushed their agenda too far.

You can’t have an exemption if the logic behind it is contradictory and arbitrary- that fails the legitimacy test.

I see that Lost is still paddling upstream, powered by the zeal of a true believer.

So what you're saying is, if 'passing' transmen can be excluded from female spaces, when their 'passingness' will distress the users - rape support groups, DV shelters etc - then 'passing' transwomen have to be allowed in female spaces or it's not fair?

Your argument is 'well if raped and abused women can exclude the strapping bearded transmen then you have to let dainty transwomen in because otherwise no fair'?

You're trying to use raped women as way to wedge males into women's spaces, on the grounds that the raped women are being mean to the men otherwise?

Is that really the look you want to go for? Because, between us, it really does just point out how much of a male supremacist movement gender ideology actually is.

#Operation let them speak

I have very little sympathy for the adult males in this game who orchestrated the whole thing and are now being told no.

I do have significant sympathy for anyone under the age of 25 who is affected because they have been encouraged and lied to by adults who really should have known better and have been brought up into the idea that they, born John, are really now Jane or young women who've believed they had to have sex with a TW or be labelled a TERF or a genital fetishist and that couldn't happen as they were all under the LGBT+ umbrella together. Or the young women who thought that binding their breasts and adopting unisex clothing would protect them from sexism.

And I have some sympathy for the 'quiet and gentle' TW who just felt they weren't men and have been living peacefully and tolerated alongside us for many years.

But, mostly, I want to support women and see women's rights protected as a woman, as a sister of girls, as the mother of a daughter, as the aunt of a niece and as the teacher of 100s of girls over the years.

As I understand it, the exemption can exclude TM from women's facilities, but does not state this means they must be included in men's. It says 'provision' must be in place to avoid discrimination, but this could be a third space, likely the already unisex accessible toilet in practise. So even if a similar exemption were in place for TW, this would not provide them with the key to the women's toilets you are arguing for.