I stand corrected Lilly M can get pregnant

I think also part of the problem is that the protected characteristic for women is "sex" rather than "being a woman". So framing us as a specific protected group in a legal question is difficult.

nooka and PencilsInSpace i completely agree with you that the intention behind the exemptions was to allow common sense initiatives such as women-only rape counselling groups, or employment initiatives targeting underrepresented groups.

The problem with the "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim" phrasing is that, if challenged, you generally need to have objective (often empirical) evidence to support it.

For example, it would not necessarily be enough to see off a legal challenge by saying "of course the majority of women would not want to receive rape counselling from a man who self-identifies as a woman - it is common sense", no matter how obvious that assertion seems. You would probably need to support it with hard evidence - surveys etc - confirming that. Even then, it is a balancing act for the courts to determine whether the decision was BOTH proportionate AND had a legitimate aim. Any resultant discrimination against one class of people with a protected characteristic must be outweighed by the benefits to another class of people with a protected characteristic.

What worries me is that smart trans-activists could bring test cases challenging positions targeted at natal women. I'd actually be surprised if this hasn't happened already

Dangerous to underestimate or dismiss these as fools.

Trans Activism uses Trumpisms to work.

Those who use these methods are not trolls. Do not label them as trolls as this underestimates their power and their danger.

This is useful to help understand.

I think we need to challenge on two fronts. Stop self ID in the GRA, and push for women's rights to female spaces etc to be laid out in the EA and the definition of "gender reassignment" made in a way that does not disadvantage women as a group discriminated against and oppressed on the grounds of sex.

In a way you are right though as the exceptions can only practically be used if the transwoman lets it be known that they are trans. There doesn't appear to be anything to stop a transwoman getting a GRC, changing their birth certificate and then applying for a female only job while not disclosing that they are trans.

The thing is that at the moment this is subject to a certain amount of medical gatekeeping. So the numbers who can do this are restricted. Which is why it's so important to oppose self ID. It's not "irrelevant" to women as trans activists say.

But that’s just the thing, isn’t it? If transwomen are women, as per the accepted dogma, then the exemption won’t apply to them.

No it will, it does! Both of the exceptions use a specific example of a women-only rape counselling group. It it legal to exclude transwomen as group participants and as counsellors.

In a way you are right though as the exceptions can only practically be used if the transwoman lets it be known that they are trans. There doesn't appear to be anything to stop a transwoman getting a GRC, changing their birth certificate and then applying for a female only job while not disclosing that they are trans.

There doesn't appear to be any legal way of identifying a trans employee or job applicant with a GRC unless they have disclosed this information themselves, even if they present like Muscato. If it's not legal to say a person is trans it cannot be legal to use the exceptions in the EA.

Fuck this Orwellian shit.

One of the reasons I will never carry a donor card.

And relatives can override the donor card.

Are we still discussing this?

Men cannot give birth. Get over it!

But that’s just the thing, isn’t it? If transwomen are women, as per the accepted dogma, then the exemption won’t apply to them. It’s a total mind fuck.

Certain of the exemptions can apply to MTF trans people, even with a GRC. We need to make sure they stay and lobby to strengthen them and clarify the meaning of "gender reassignment". Agree it's a mind fuck, obviously!

Dh has got it!

He reckons lily is a plant, a patsy. He is being manipulated by either

a the tories

b the Russians

c North Korea

I think he is onto something....

But that’s just the thing, isn’t it? If transwomen are women, as per the accepted dogma, then the exemption won’t apply to them. It’s a total mind fuck.

Which wouldn’t translate to any of the other exemptions listed. I couldn’t say I identify as deaf to be a BSL counsellor, or Sue for discrimination because I identify as a black man to play Othello (I’m a white woman). It’s just the women’s spaces that are up for grabs.

Exceptions have been used for many many years in other parts of equalities legislation without issue. For example if you are supplying a service to a specific group of people and have good grounds to believe that should be delivered in a particular way when you advertise employment opportunities you can explicitly state that you are only looking for candidates from that group. This is discrimination that would normally be illegal. As an example I used to work in breast screening and all the radiologists were female. If you were male you could not be employed in a screening clinic because of the legitimate need of service users. The exemption was always stated on the adverts so it was clear why only women should apply. I imagine that organisations might well feel uncomfortable saying that transwomen were also exempted but legally they can do so so long as they can defend their reasoning.

The exceptions were touched on, but I understand they are very hard to implement.

And I’m pretty sure that’s going to be the next thing to be ‘amended’.

It's all down to public perception of what is reasonable. If the debate is open and transparent and there is enough public pressure the exemptions will be implemented. But people think women's views can be safely ignored and prioritise those of men.

Superfluous ‘is’ in my first sentence, more apologies

I am sorry, I read the question following the is discussion of radical feminism as ‘and how is radical atheism explained?’

That is what I was answering, not what atheism means.

Atheists really do not believe that atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God."

No, they believe lots of other things too. But that's what atheism means.

And I am not sure I said you could be more or less of an atheist, just that there are different ways of being/arguing/looking at atheism. That is a different thing.

Whatever. That’s my philosophy out the window then. Do you have a better explanation of radical atheism? I mean, if atheism is simply believing there is no God, why do some atheists expend enormous amounts of time considering the moral implications of this, and what to do about the absence of belief, and whether absence of a belief is a good or a bad thing. Atheists really do not believe that atheism is simply the absence of a belief in God. They have many arguments amongst themselves about what that means.

How is that different from feminists arguing about what and why there is inequality? I mean, I think we could say feminism generally is about addressing the inequalities that women face. What that means, what we do about it and how is where the debates amongst feminists lie.

Although I am willing to be corrected on that too.

The exceptions were touched on, but I understand they are very hard to implement.

And I’m pretty sure that’s going to be the next thing to be ‘amended’.

IcedCocoa-that's not atheism.
Atheism simply means a lack of a belief in a god or gods.
No more or less than that. You can't be more or less of an atheist-it's a binary, to use a term suited to the thread!

AnachronisticCorpse - did they cover the exception in the Equality Act that states that where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, single-sex services can exclude trans people who identify as that sex? Or the exception that states that a trans person can be disqualified for a single-sex position where it is a genuine occupational requirement?

I bet they didn't.

Radical atheism would be going beyond ‘there is no God’ to a belief that the origins of religion lie in humankind’s need for deities, I think, and trying to change that.

So, not what people believe, but why they believe that and what can be done about that.

After all, you cannot prove a negative (God does not exist), so the only scientific way to get to the root of religious belief is to explore why people believe what they do and address that.

Of course, one would have to assume religion is a bad thing to be a radical atheist, and not see religion positively as something which holds communities together, and gives individuals hope.

That would be my explanation of radical atheism. I don’t think it is the same as militant atheism.

Which is maybe side-tracking the thread, but someone asked upthread.

or other attributes of sex What the fuck is this even supposed to mean?

God I really hope LM is trolling Owen Jones.

I also carry a donor card that says they can use anything after I am dead

Sorry, I agree with everyone else that Lily Madigan is fucking ridiculous but is taking a womb from someone on the register ever likely to be a possibility? (This is a genuine question, btw). I've just been reading about someone who had a baby through a womb transplant and my understanding of that case was that the donor was 61 and still alive (and the recipient still had their ovaries).

If it ever becomes apparent that they are donating wombs to men, I'll be another who's removing themselves from the register as well.