Ministers commit to preserving sex-based exemptions

So why are you doing it — you are the ones that are campaigning to get transwomen excluded from spaces that they are perfectly entitled to use at the moment!

I'm campaigning f to ensure that protections in place for women are upheld. Im campaigning to ensure that predatory males are not able to get even easier access to women. The focus, hard as this might be to believe, is not trans people.(Believe it or not, not EVERYTHING is about trans people) A by product of ensuring safe spaces for women remain, would be to have stricter procedures for those who were born male. Yes, I have no problem admitting that my first priority is women who were born female.

A significant part of me is very uncomfortable by the added layer to this that some trans people rifle through toilet bins for used tampons, that go to smear tests to see if the nurse thinks their surgical vagina is 'real', that chats on Internet forums about how they went in changing rooms and 'passed'.

You might also want to target the 'figureheads' of your campaigns. The ones that present hyper-sexualised images of themselves and think that being a women is all about dresses and hair and make up. Their desperation for validation is palpable.

If there had been one jot of consideration for the needs and fears of women by your 'community' then we must be able to actually have a discussion. But everything is dismissed and trivialised to suit your agenda time and time again so no, no negotiation.

"New"

"It doesn't matter which side of the fence people who present as opposite to their birth sex are on during this. We want sex segregated spaces and not human made sex's but birth sex." - @spontaneousgiventime

That's it, isn't it? It isn't about safety or any of the other pretences. It's about wanting to establish natal sex as a new basis of discrimination

It's got nothing whatsoever to do with "validating" anything.

Au contraire.

Please see this thread
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3275325-Can-we-be-honest-about-the-need-for-affirmation

Pratchet
You want to introduce changes that will affect only women. How is that not anti-women?
Nope. Not suggesting any changes that will have any effect on non-trans women.

Kettlepotblackagain
Our space is not a fucking game.
It's not a novelty.
It's not an 'experience'.
It's a RIGHT. A hard fought RIGHT and necessity.

Same here.
Our space is not a game.
It's not a novelty.
It's not an 'experience'.
It's a RIGHT. A hard fought RIGHT and necessity.
So please stop trying to take it away from us.

Are you able to answer my questions Damn?

Do you think it is anti-trans to retain single sex services and spaces?
Do you have any problem with the single sex exemptions in the EqA?

I don't believe the current GRC process is too costly or difficult.

You only need documents from the past two years. The guidance for completing the application form says 'Typically five or six different documents should be included'

According to GIRES:

civil servants work directly with the applicants and do an excellent job in assisting applicants to put their information together in the most favourable way.

and

The GRP is definitely minded to grant applications, wherever legally possible, which is why directions are given rather than making final decisions which might not be in favour of the applicant. So despite the high rate of requests for further information very few applications actually fail outright. In most cases the issues are around information not being submitted correctly, the most common one of late being the stat dec form not being filled out correctly and/or not witnessed and signed in the prescence of someone qualified to do so.

The solicitor fee for witnessing a statutory declaration is generally £5.

To get a copy of a lost decree absolute costs £10 if you still know the details, up to £65 if a search of courts and case numbers is required. For anyone who gets a divorce it's a really good idea to keep your decree absolute. It's an important document.

It's worth reading the government guidance (including the application forms and the full guidance documents)to understand exactly what the current process is.

Kettlepotblackagain
No other group makes demands for have something that wasn't rightfully theres in the first place.
So why are you doing it — you are the ones that are campaigning to get transwomen excluded from spaces that they are perfectly entitled to use at the moment!

But it's also because your need for your identity to be validated trumps everyone else else's concerns. Absolute rubbish. When I use a public loo it's because I need to go to the loo. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with "validating" anything.
When I use a changing room, the only thing I am "validating" is whether the clothes I am thinking of buying actually fit!

Our space is not a fucking game.

It's not a novelty.

It's not an 'experience'.

It's a RIGHT. A hard fought RIGHT and necessity.

You want to introduce changes that will affect only women. How is that not anti-women?

Loopytiles
Wanting to retain single sex services and spaces is not “anti trans”.
Wanting to introduce new restrictions which will only affect trans people clearly is anti-trans.

Good policy considers people’s interests, which often don’t align, and evidence... -
... any decent policy analysis should find that the best policy is, for certain single sex services, to exclude transpeople.
Hmmm... so you agree that good policy-making is based on evidence — except where the evidence doesn't point to the answer you want! The 2015 Select Committee examined the evidence — including the "evidence" put forward by the powerful anti-trans lobby groups , and came up with its recommendations.

And also what kettle said.

you are admitting that you want existing rights removed from trans people — that you want trans people denied access to public loos, denied the opportunity to try on clothes before they buy

Pls stop lying and putting words in my mouth

Trans people can use public toilets - why not?

Trans people can use shop changing rooms, why not?

I must just as well say you want women's existing rights to use public toilets and changing rooms removed. You certainly want to destroy their right to sex specific spaces. At least you can be honest about that.

Well at least that's honest. You are admitting that you want existing rights removed from trans people — that you want trans people denied access to public loos, denied the opportunity to try on clothes before they buy. And you want to deny the victims of rape or domestic violence access to support services if they don't fit your criteria (rather than those of the people on the spot who actually provide the service)

No other group makes demands for have something that wasn't rightfully theres in the first place.

Our safe space is needed for privacy, dignity and safety. It may be partly needed by you for that reason too. But it's also because your need for your identity to be validated trumps everyone else else's concerns.

Any other group in history has quite rightly campaigned to be accepted in spaces and in law that were already theirs in the first place.

This must be the only group that says, no, our own space is not good enough. We need your space. It's not enough to be accepted as trans. We have to rewrite and refine EVERYTHING to suit your agenda.

Tough.

Women have FOUGHT for their right to a safe space.

This is OUR space. Too right the default position is on sex segregation and then very careful consideration and justification for any exemptions and NOT the other way round.

Wanting to retain single sex services and spaces is not “anti trans

Do you think it is anti-trans Damned?
Do you have any problem with the single sex exemptions in the EqA?

post-ops like Debbie should have access.

No.

Unfortunately many organisations providing services are practicing bad policymaking, to the detriment of girls and women.

Some transpeople (identifying as women) denied access to some SINGLE SEX services.

Pratchet
We WANT the EA amended. We want sex specific spaces to be a right, not 'permissible'.
Well at least that's honest. You are admitting that you want existing rights removed from trans people — that you want trans people denied access to public loos, denied the opportunity to try on clothes before they buy. And you want to deny the victims of rape or domestic violence access to support services if they don't fit your criteria (rather than those of the people on the spot who actually provide the service)

The words don’t help. The policy should be that single sex services and spaces should not have to employ or admit biological boys and men “self identifying” as girls or women. If organisations decide to do so, this should be made clear to current and potential service users.

Wanting to retain single sex services and spaces is not “anti trans”. Good policy considers people’s interests, which often don’t align, and evidence - for example about risks of crime. In this case IMO any decent policy analysis should find that the best policy is, for certain single sex services, to exclude transpeople.

PeakPants
Damned that report compiled by a government minister has been shared so many times that I can’t be arsed to share it again. Not all government intentions are by way of draft legislation.
Please show me anything that committed the government to "Self ID". I have seen nothing more detailed than this (12 months ago, and still no nearer to seeing the light of day):-
Proposals will include:
Removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition. The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community; and
Proposing options for reducing the length and intrusiveness of the gender recognition system."
Removing the need for a formal diagnosis of one very specific condition, and "proposing options" do not add up to "Self ID"!

That people think we should show our gratitude for that by saying Debbie should be able to access all women-only spaces is a bit bizarre.

Please quote where anyone suggests that. Asking the question about whether the likes of Debbie should be excluded (I'm assuming she uses female toilets) is not suggesting some kind of reward, it's merely finding out whether the poster believes that all trans people should be excluded or whether she believes post-ops like Debbie should have access.

This is reporting of the actual government response to the petition:

The government statement came in response to a petition launched by Amy Desir of Man Friday, a feminist group that seeks to ridicule the notion that people should be allowed to self-identify with a particular gender.

And I agree with others, the timing of the reporting is interesting. The government response was published nearly 3 weeks ago and is entirely different in tone from Mordaunt's comments on Wednesday.