Ministers commit to preserving sex-based exemptions

The recurring suggestion of third space also dies t hold up to scrutiny.

If you are concerned for safety of female bodies in the presence of male bodies, which GC says it is, then a third space is equally problematic, containing, as it would, natal male genitals, natal female genitals, surgically created male genitals and surgically created female genitals. It's such a profoundly flawed "solution" that no organisation will touch it with a barge pole. And that's just on the safety argument grounds, without even getting into the human rights.

I know how to get things done.

I literally just snorted tea over my keyboard.

"Law is passed by parliament - are you saying you're an MP? Otherwise, you're a lobbyist, which is a laudable profession but really not the same as being a law maker."
Law is also passed when the Government loses certain types of judicial review - or realises before court that its case is hopeless.

2 comments in the Indy from the bat signal woman-hating brigade.

I suggest donating to women's rights here They are "A campaign of films and information outreach to ensure women’s and girls' rights are defended during the government consultation on the GRA."

Who knows where they may be able to branch off too with enough money.

I don't have a penis. I have a vagina. Am I OK?

I think many women would be okay with that (including me) and I think this is why this whole issue has only blown up recently. When the GRA was passed, people imagined old-school transsexuals like yourself, not people who chose to remain fully intact. The problem is that I don't think we can mandate that people have surgery, as surgery is expensive and risky.

Pre-op, there is no way I would have put myself in the position of having to undress in front of other people—for my sake or theirs! I think most trans people are the same.

Some are, but given that most trans people will not go on to have surgery, they are presumably using changing facilities etc without undergoing physical transition. I think the goalposts have shifted now- for many younger transgender people, it is now perfectly acceptable to retain and be proud of the original sexed body (you hear things about female penises etc). Also, groups like Stonewall include cross-dressing people under the trans umbrella.

I have a huge amount of sympathy for people with genuine gender dysphoria who transition. I was watching a clip of an interview with April Ashley the other day and it was very very moving and at university, I remember reading Bellinger v Bellinger and being outraged at the court's decision. I actually think the government is letting down both women and old-school transsexuals by being so blase about gender and making it just about filling in a form and suggesting that people can transition an unlimited number of times.

And for those who do pass and nobody knows, I don't think it's an issue and they wouldn't cause any discomfort to women (if those women had no idea the person was trans).

It just does not make any sense!

That just shows that you don't understand
A. Boundaries
B. Consent

You haven't made a point. You've just proved that a woman's 'NO' absolutely mystifies you.

❤️❤️
I notice the Indy headline is all about the people with Y chromosomes. Default assumption.

snappity

What do you think the point of sex segregated provision is? What is the point of having male and female wards when access is not determined by sexed bodies?

You object to third spaces but not to stealth mixed sex. Why don’t you just campaign to abolish single sex provision?

Snappity

Would you agree that there should be a cheaper, easier access to justice for both gender reassigned people and women challenging institutions which fail to adequately balance rights with regards to single sex services?

Story is in the Indy too.

"What is your actual problem? I doubt you know any trans or non-binary people yourself. It's not 'segregating' trans people, it's providing fucking services for them."

My partner was male-bodied when I met her but is legally female now. I have dated a trans man. I have met dozens of trans people. I am on a LGBT* group and have met more trans people. My Facebook is full of trans people. So you couldn't be more wrong.

And providing a third space is a service so long as it is optional but apply any pressure and it becomes segregation.

As to human rights, there are a dozen pages of equality law out there which is a direct result of work I did. I am responsible for policy changes by several public bodies including national ones.

You couldn't be more wrong about me. I know how to get things done. It's exhausting and I would rather not but when I say there would be a legal challenge to segregation, that is not hyperbole.

PeakPants
To be fair, if they wanted to, they would lie in wait for you as you exited the ladies' too.
Well they could ... but we wouldn't be labelling ourselves! And (in spite of what some people like to pretend, most of us are not half as noticeable as they like to think we are!) You only notice the ones that are noticeable! And of the people that you think "Oh that one's trans"... how do you know you're right?

I think I am thinking more about female-specific services and naked changing spaces. Do you have any view on that- is there in your view ever a situation where it is legitimate to segregate based on biology rather than gender identity?

I don't have a penis. I have a vagina. Am I OK?

Pre-op, there is no way I would have put myself in the position of having to undress in front of other people — for my sake or theirs! I think most trans people are the same.

Love you too Pratchet and I LOVE reading your posts.

Sorry bit late to this thread nothing much to add just total shock that ministers would commit to. Something that is already In place and is not planned to be changed. I'm. Shocked

I'm afraid I responded to your previous post before I saw the clarification.
I think you and I may be astonishingly close to agreement on this —- but I'm afraid that doesn't count for anything much

OK, well sounds kind of promising. I do think a solution that benefits both sides is possible, but does require movement from both parties.

Also with the loving for Lang, kettle and sponty

Segregation of trans people into a third space is a total non-starter. The optics are appalling. It would face an immediate human rights challenge- and lose.

What is your actual problem? I doubt you know any trans or non-binary people yourself. It's not 'segregating' trans people, it's providing fucking services for them. What about non-binary people? There was someone on Genderquake who said they didn't want to ever use the loo in public unless it was unisex. I guess according to you, they would just be chucked under a bus, right?
You know nothing about human rights law whereas many of us here do. You keep making stupid and insulting comparisons to brutal regimes when people are trying to think of a way forward that benefits both trans people and women. This is not a 'non-starter', nor is it in breach of human rights law, you doink, because the EA already allows for sex-specific services. Read a book or something.

I love you too Lang. That was a bit random, but always welcome.

Kettle, Sponty - I love you.

Try this one. You need a very open mind as there is no topic off limits.

Kettlepotblackagain I recommend reading their own words. It is quite fascinating and not being that way inclined myself an eye opener. Try a forum, American ones are the most open and revealing.

Great, I will thanks.

I think they are an important part of this debate and it seems their voice is very quiet.