Ministers commit to preserving sex-based exemptions

anti-trans campaigning

Ah yes, never can bring yourself to say 'pro women'..it has to be anti-trans, which is not even true.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5878763/Report-reveals-paedophile-attacks-far-widespread-previously-feared.html

Rebekah Eglinton, one of IICSA’s clinical psychologists, works closely with the Truth Project. She said: ‘We’re learning that many people have put themselves in positions of trust and authority to have access to children.

We should be cautious about ANY males placing themselves in these positions, with an agenda to dismantle safeguarding.

So you want people like Debbie Hayton kept out too?

1. Sex is a biological reality. It is a binary of reproductive classes: female and male. Females are discriminated against, exploited, oppressed, disadvantaged and subject to violence on the basis of their reproductive Sex. For this reason, certain special provisions and protections have been fought for, hard won and put in place to allow women to get somewhere a little closer to equality with men, to remove some of the barriers only women face and to offer protection, respite and recovery from oppression and domination by men.

2. Sex change is impossible. No male can ever become female. No male will ever be oppressed for being reproductively female, therefore no male is ever entitled to the protections and provisions which help females.

3. Some males are really lovely, sweet, intelligent, sane, kind, charismatic, fun people. Some males are have a disorders where they prefer to live 'as though' they are a woman. But this does not make them a woman or entitled to women's protections and provisions.

Therefore, some protections and provisions must be for females only, which will exclude males including the lovely and/or ones who want to live 'as though' they are women.

I know several post-op TSs who consider the whole process too difficult and/or expensive.

How is it too difficult? And its means tested also.

I use sex dysphoria, as transsexual people are dysphoric about their sexed body. Not their 'gender' which is nothing but a bunch of stereotypes.

So you want people like Debbie Hayton kept out too?

Extremist Trans activists have made threats the latest being bomb threats against women, how do we know who is like Debbie and who is like the Speakers corner crew or the KFC bomber? Mexico is having trouble in women's political representation telling the differences between a man and a trans person, according to a Guardian piece.

Debbie must understand by now, how damaging the impact is on safeguarding children and women and that Debbie would be supported in a campaign for a trans specific space or service.

I think we could equally make a case for contact sports (increased injury risk to women).

Please do. Please put all your anti-trans campaigning efforts into this. Because the thing is that both the GRA and the EA already exempt women's sport and the government had never proposed removing these exemptions.

But perhaps in 6 months a government spokesperson will reiterate that sport is not affected and ManFriday can claim another great victory for women's rights.

Also males with a GRC are not women. The sex exemptions should also excludes them.

So you want people like Debbie Hayton kept out too?

In a major victory, ministers have vowed not to change a law nobody was proposing changing

This. The government has never proposed changing the Equality Act and removing the single sex exceptions.

Nothing to see here, move on.

Mmmm they will launch the consultation to co-incide with Pride (not IWD eh?) - what a great day to create a bias in your responses govt!

I am not convinced. "Case by case basis" what the fuck does that mean and why is that clause even there?

Also males with a GRC are not women. The sex exemptions should also excludes them.

Anyone who pretends to know what the amended act might say is either misinformed or deliberately lying. No-one knows what is going to be proposed.

Well, apart from that is what the government has previously said they would do in terms of amending the Act.

Good news and much more of a definitive statement about balancing the rights than previous ones that focused only on trans rights.

Needs tightening up though as it should not be a choice made by the service providers. Where it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, it should be mandatory and women should be allowed to sue a service provider who fails to provide a service.

Can see from that statement that Stonewall are not happy. They don't want any exemptions, ever, full stop. A bit like Snappity it seems.

To Personwithavulva (from another person with a vulva)
The statement says the current process for gaining a gender recognition certificate “is not working well for the people it is designed for”, with only 4,850 certificates issued since the Gender Recognition Act came into force in 2004. But the statement adds: “That does not necessarily mean we are proposing self-declaration of gender.”

Thank you for making that clear:- “That does not necessarily mean we are proposing self-declaration of gender.”
Anyone who pretends to know what the amended act might say is either misinformed or deliberately lying. No-one knows what is going to be proposed.

PS - The number of certificates issued is more than 4850. Not a lot more, but 4850 is definitely wrong. Mine is number 5xxx

So it looks to me like the current system is working exactly as intended? Works for those who actually have sex dysphoria, and keeps out those who just follow different stereotypes (and abusive males who would otherwise exploit the fuck out of it)
No, it doesn't. I know several post-op TSs who consider the whole process too difficult and/or expensive. Know others who are in a position rather like that of the Windrush generation: they can't produce the evidence that the Gender Recognition Panel demands because they never imagined that they might be required to produce it.

PS The term is Gender Dysphoria — not Sex Dysphoria.

Yes it is a reiteration of the Government's response to the petition but it's good that the response is being reported in the press.

Well done Man Friday and WPUK.

In a major victory, ministers have vowed not to change a law nobody was proposing changing...
...and to consult on a possible future change to a law that antitrans activists have spent the past few months claiming that already know all the details of!
Wow.
You can tell Parliament is in recess, can't you — the quality of "news" reporting has gone even further downhill!

I think we could equally make a case for contact sports (increased injury risk to women).

I don't think we should have to make that case. It should be on those who think 100kg male bodied people with a large muscle mass won't injure or disadvantage 70kg female people with significantly less muscle mass.

It is evident that women organising have had an impact and that the violent and intimidatory tactics of the T activists have been an own goal. However, the fact that MPs are too frightened to speak out openly about this, means that we have to continue to ensure that the general public understand the risks that self ID poses to the safety of women and children.

"The law was written when government only expected a few thousand people to transition, but we're looking at hundreds of thousands of people"

You are making a great argument that, because more people are now needing protection, that the laws protecting trans people should be strengthened and extended.

Kudos to you Amy Desir

There is abundant evidence about the need for safeguarding and single sex spaces to protect women and children from sexual predation and assault. In my view, the case for objective justification for areas where women and children will be vulnerable and privacy is needed (eg changing rooms, overnight shared accomdation, toilets, hospital wards) has already been made & should be off the table for case by case consideration. I think we could equally make a case for contact sports (increased injury risk to women).

The danger is that the general public will take this statement at face value. Exceptions are safe,no change to EQ Act. This is why a campaign is so important.

Shows what an excellent campaign ManFriday have run, and that all the hard work done by WPUK etc is having an effect. There's a long way to go.

Agreed, the default should be for single sex to mean exactly what it says on the tin. If trans people would like exemptions in certain specific circumstances then they can then campaign for them.

Anyone who does try to apply an exemption at the moment is getting pilloried on social media. That makes me think that it needs to swing the other way. Normally single-sex services / facilities should need to make a case for including biological males if they think it's called for.

This. It's absurd that we're the ones who would have to go cap in hand to justify our need for single sex provision when sexual discrimination is almost always against us, sexual assaults are almost always committed on us.

The law was written when government only expected a few thousand people to transition, but we're looking at hundreds of thousands of people and not all will have GID, most will retain the genitals they were born with and a good number consider themselves fluid and will flit between masculine and feminine.

I'm not sure this piece does more than reiterate the government response to the petition but it's good to have it covered in a mainstream paper.

I agree Errol, but I also think it's got a bit of "added significance" in the context of Mordaunt's performance midweek - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3283616-Penny-Mordaunt-has-made-her-position-at-Women-Equalities-Committee

Seems to me the Sunday Times is doing it's best to put Mordaunt on the spot by pointing out that she came across very differently when responding to the petition only a short while before that.

Empress

Yes. That's the way round it should be