Ministers commit to preserving sex-based exemptions

Who else do Stonewall want women and children to remove safeguards for?

Gay men, old men, ,weak men, disabled men? They get bullied too.

I'm cynical. After watching Mordaunt's performance at Committee I don't think she has a clue. Anyone who pleads for tolerance immediately before using the word bigot is suspect. We need to keep up the pressure. There will be no space in the coming consultation to comment on single sex spaces. We have to accept nothing less than new guidance to organisations. It's the new guidance that has been given that's changed the balance of rights.

I should be happy with this but there is something I can't put my finger on. May be it is because I cannot see whether Penny Mordaunt is running with the foxes or hunting with the hounds.

Isn't she just a typical politician trying to come up with a fudge that probably doesn't leave either side happy?

I should be happy with this but there is something I can't put my finger on. May be it is because I cannot see whether Penny Mordaunt is running with the foxes or hunting with the hounds.

I do not think that a case-by-case basis is satisfactory.

What the Government needs to provide sooner rather than later is a sensible definition of who is covered by the term transgender. Not the Stonewall free-for-all version and definitely one that excludes men whose hobby is autogynephilia.

It merely restates the current status quo, where existing exemptions are not being used. This is not good enough. The guidance and exemptions need strengthening so service providers have confidence in applying them & discretionary decisions are not dumped on frontline staff, often junior and on minimum wage.

“Providers of women-only services [can choose not to] provide services to trans individuals, provided it is objectively justified on a case-by-case basis. The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single-sex activities. Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, provided it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.”

If it's on a case by case basis then presumably that means there will be no blanket ban? I can't actually see businesses going to the trouble to check every individual on an individual basis heading into the toilets or changing rooms. It probably leaves them the scope to do something if someone complains or if something looks iffy but it doesn't look as if that generally stops any trans person from just walking into whatever facility they choose.

One of the cases mentioned by The Times is an example of the difficulty of incompatible rights

metro.co.uk/2018/01/14/woman-who-feared-men-accused-of-transphobia-after-objecting-to-hospital-room-with-trans-woman-7227597/

Popchyk
If Mordaunt follows the model of the clueless Maria Miller, not a woman's voice will be heard!
Hopefully their previous bias has now been recognised and this time those representing the voices of women, children, prisoners etc will not only be allowed to submit responses but will be invited to some of the cosy chats that they have.

Progress, I think. And yes, the Times article referenced the great work done so far.

But much to be done.

Do we know who Penny Mordaunt is consulting with in the July consultation?

I agree that we mustn't give up. This is waffle - we need to keep on bringing the issues up, keep on meeting. Please comment under the article if you can

I'm sorry for the dampener but it looks like a PR exercise to me

I'm more hopeful than that.

I agree that it's just a positive spin (in GC terms) on the government petition response. However, it's notable that the Times is now feeling able to frame this as a return to common sense by government. The whole tone is Well, duh, obviously, which is a real improvement.

The assumption behind the article is that everyone already knows extremist transactivist demands are a very bad idea; the Times no longer feels the need to actually make the case to its readers that they're a very bad idea.

This, I'd say, is progress.

And thanks mostly to all the wonderful women who have campaigned at great personal risk. Thank you, women!

I'm also concerned that it says they are launching the consultation to coincide with Pride, which to me says that they are pushing it forward on the same platform as gay marriage and being woke and going after the youth vote.

Yes good point

I do agree however that if it weren't for Man Friday and Woman's Place and We Need to Talk etc there would be no dialogue at all, so well done!

I think my main point is not to be swayed, and keep going. And if the governments actions look to be cynical we need to keep challenging them. Especially on how providers can balance women's rights with transgender ones.

Exactly. I'm concerned that this is a PR exercise to try to reassure women when they know the exemptions are difficult to use. I'm also concerned that it says they are launching the consultation to coincide with Pride, which to me says that they are pushing it forward on the same platform as gay marriage and being woke and going after the youth vote.

This is just PR but they are being forced ro do the PR because ManFriday & others are getting the issue out there, making it a discussion.
Well done chaps - keep going!

I think that we can tentatively say they have heard us. Whether they will listen is another matter.

Brilliant that they are paying attention (well done ManFriday chaps!) but not so brilliant that it’s still completely woolly and open. Perhaps they will refine it later.

I see this as the next step on the ladder, not that the battle has been won by any means. This is certainly very favourable in our direction, in the way it is written at least, and shows this issue is being taken seriously. The word is getting out there, which is huge considering we were so concerned about how this was all being looked at behind closed doors. That's thanks mainly to the fabulous Man Friday.

I do agree that the explanations are waffley and actually meaningless when you seriously study them. I agree with Errol - sex segregation should be the default, any exemptions need careful consideration and justification.

Well done, ManFriday!

Sex-based exemptions aren't worth the paper they are written on if it's possible to legally change sex.

I have seen many people say "transwomen are women" and simultaneously be quite happy with sex segregation, because transwomen (as biological women, obviously) are , by their definition included in all women's spaces.

The specific exemptions are only of any use if (1) they are possible to implement and (2) they can exclude people with a GRC (in other words treat them as their natal sex).

This isn't a victory yet, but it is a sign that consciousness raising efforts are starting to pay off and politicians are noticing that attempts to railroad women into accepting the changes asked for by TRAs will not go unopposed.

Positive news but yes, I do wonder about the GRC "not working well for those for whom it was designed'

I agree with PersonWithAVulva

"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"

This is why we are where we are, discussing it: because other people wish to exploit it

''It pledges: “Providers of women-only services [can choose not to] provide services to trans individuals, provided it is objectively justified on a case-by-case basis. The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single-sex activities. Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, provided it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.”''

This isn't good enough. It leaves frontline staff and trans people in, at best, an awkward social situation; and at worst, open to abuse.
Existing women only spaces and services have already demonstrated they have a legitimate aim.

Trans people need to set up their own spaces and services.