Dealing with inflammatory posts re Trans on MN

Sorry that is such a good way of framing it it deserves 👏

Spot on with that analysis. I think a combination of both. Misogyny/sexism playing into both.

The combination of the GRA and the EA have essentially created a class of people who are more equal than other people. The Self ID amendments will make it possible to identify into that class.
I do not know whether these are intended or unintended consequences.

the threat of legal action up to now has been used conversely to challenge single-sex provisions...

That's the thing. It would likely have to be a woman who brought a case. But that's not the way the law is framed. AWS is the obvious choice because it is a clear discrimination issue involving potential misuse of the single sex exemption.

My apologies for being unclear. The intent and application are miles apart demonstrating that it is being used as a tool for sex discrimination.

I understand the intent. The way it is written has given rise to the application which is that there are very few, nearly none for women.
Man Friday showed us that the provision is promptly implemented to protect men the moment they are challenged but not women.

I really don't buy in to the narrative/propoganda that same-sex provision is difficult to defend.

You can only defend it if people are prepared to offer it, and most organisations, commercial or otherwise aren't enthusiastic about going to court.

There is just complete confusion at the moment, which is one of the reasons we need to be able to talk and use words that have meaning.

The proportionate and legitimate part protects women in many respects. It stops men being able to exclude women from spaces and activities that would benefit them, just on the basis of them being women.
It also ensures that where an organisation does provide a same-sex facility, the female facility is equally as good as the males.
The EA can do a lot for females and helps us out in many respects. We just need to make sure that it is applied properly and mistruths about it aren't spread to encourage companies to deny females their entitlements.

bewilderness I am not sure I understand your point.

My take isn't that the EA comes from a place where women and girl's safety, privacy, and dignity, is negotiable. I think the 'proportionate and legitimate' aspect is to do with the context that surrounds the rationale for making a provision same-sex/ whether it being same-sex is likely to have a baring on privacy and dignity.

So, a same-sex knitting group that meets to knit hats for prem babies - it might be hard to argue that same-sex provision is proportionate and legitimate.
Spaces where sexed bodies come in to play - accommodation, changing facilities, crisis centres - not hard to make a case for sexed-bodies mattering.
I really don't buy in to the narrative/propoganda that same-sex provision is difficult to defend. I am longing for some test cases to disprove this

"Proportionate and legitimate" is just bullshit tbh.

Like women can only have women-only-space if the powers that be deem their need to be reasonable - it's a bit too close to "why can't you just be nice?" imo

Was it a proportionate and legitimate use of the exemption in the Equality Act? I.e. could you consider some form of reasonable adjustment so that he could be there, for instance a male chaperone?

So I am guessing home alone in your own bed just might qualify for a right to single sex occupancy.

I dunno. I mean, did a male person indicate that he'd like to be there too? Did you offer a reasonable explanation as to why he couldn't be, and was your explanation accepted by a panel of impartial (ie male) people?

2.Women have a right for certain single sex services which exclude others where it is ‘proportionate and legitimate’ to do so
This has been up my nose since I first read it in the EA.
Women and girls safety, privacy, and dignity, is negotiable and businesses who choose to provide for women and girls safety, privacy, and dignity, must demonstrate it is 'proportionate and legitimate' to do so. Various states of undress do not qualify and if what they are telling GG is correct children sleeping and railways sleepers do not qualify for single sex accomodations. So I am guessing home alone in your own bed just might qualify for a right to single sex occupancy.

Sue0001, do you know if any of the studies included females? I looked at several an they refer to males and people but our half of the population appears to be remarkably absent from the research. At least those that I read the overviews of. Also, I feel I should caution you that surveys are unreliable research tools.

Framing female compliance as essential to men's mental health is exactly what's getting so many women angry about this issue

Absolutely this.

Framing female compliance as essential to men's mental health is exactly what's getting so many women angry about this issue

Succinctly and brilliantly put.

Yes another thing that says transitioning helps gender dysphoria.No one is denying that. Transition away.Doesn’t mean you’ve actually changed sex though so women should get to keep the right to sex based protections.

What appears to be being argued (not just by Sue, to be clear - this is a much broader way of framing things that she's only echoing) is that women's compliance and willingness to include some men in the definition of "women", and give them unconstrained access to any women's spaces in which they feel like they ought to be, is a part of transitioning and essential to their mental health.

Framing female compliance as essential to men's mental health is exactly what's getting so many women angry about this issue, and I'd suggest that anyone who wants to engage with women on this issue in the hopes of finding a solution stop doing it. If there is a genuine clash of interests here then that needs to be acknowledged and an actual compromise reached. Group A gets whatever they ask for and Group B meekly accepts it is not a compromise, it's Group B being bullied into compliance.

The fact that their feelings shouldn't trump our own when it comes to consent and dignity is legitimate enough. Or should be.

Women should not have to prove to others (who are these others and why are they the ones who get to decide?) that we deserve a particular place to be single sex on the basis that it's ‘proportionate and legitimate’ to have it in that particular case. The fact that we want single sex spaces should be enough.

It is quite clear that trans people suffer discrimination, but not for the same reasons as women. I need to be able to describe and explain why I and other people with a female sexual reproductive system suffer discrimination, and I can't do that if I don't have a word to describe people with a female reproductive system

Yes! That's it

Sue, thank you for the links you have posted, however I think they display a lack of knowledge of the gender critical point of view. (That isn't necessarily a criticism - if you are hear to broaden your horizons, great!).

The main issue is that you are confusing identity and sex. A paper that draws links between hormones and people who are trans or gay (whatever the merits of the research) doesn't change the fact that women suffer discrimination because of their sex, not their identity or sexuality. 'Masculine' women and lesbians don't suffer less discrimination, or require different sex based services, protections or rights.

It is quite clear that trans people suffer discrimination, but not for the same reasons as women. I need to be able to describe and explain why I and other people with a female sexual reproductive system suffer discrimination, and I can't do that if I don't have a word to describe people with a female reproductive system.

I think it is wrong for anybody to make assumptions about anyone's identity or try to box them in to a particular identity box. Please don't make assumptions about my identity either.

So the word transgenderism could easily imply a stance based on fact (darwinism), a religion based on belief (Hinduism), or a belief system based on dodgy personal bias (racism).

The usage of "transgenderism" is a perfectly valid word, not an insult - and claiming it is insulting looks very much like "everything is transphobic" from the outside.

Agree. Certain people will object to anything that doesn't validate their worldview 100%. When I use it I am referring to the whole social phenomenon.

I do not trust any male person who refuses to acknowledge why women and girls need single sex provision
^^
This

So much of the pressure on women to back down on this issue is framed as “ why can’t women be more accepting and tolerant” ?
The women now speaking up on this are women who have been accepting and tolerant their whole lives. Women who have fought for minorities, lesbian women, women who have supported the vulnerable. That these are the women now standing up and saying no, should give everyone pause for thought. It is easy to bully and guilt-trip women who are kind and selfless, but I, like many, have young daughters. Where I might not fight for myself, I will fight for them. I will fight for their right to sex-segregation, privacy, protection and dignity. I will fight for their right to have spaces that are for their sex alone. I will fight for them to feel they can listen to their own inner voice and assert boundaries against male people.

I am happily married to a kind and decent man, I had a father I adored, I have male friends who I love. But ultimately I care more about the safety of girls and women than I care about the feelings of men. I do not trust any male person who refuses to acknowledge why women and girls need single sex provision. I know as soon as they say that, that they are pretending not to understand, for their own gains. It is a huge, waving red flag. Any male person who wants to access the female estate, is a male person who cannot be trusted.
It is utterly meaningless to me, how someone chooses to dress. Whether or not someone wants to wear makeup.what name they choose. Who or what they tell me that they are. Meaningless. We are female and male. Females are at risk from males and we live our entire lives mediating around that risk- not walking down the dark lane, not wearing the shoes we can’t run in. To suddenly tell us that we should be more “loving”, that this risk is in our heads....gaslighting.