Transgender people can be turned away from female only spaces government says

A fairly balanced article on the matter from the Guardian :

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/25/no-plans-change-law-single-sex-spaces-uk-transgender

Using the word "vaginoplasty" straight after I politely request that you don't - as it is inaccurate anyway - is rather rude.

Will leave it now

Agree about the tendancy of councils to rewrite the law, I wonder where they got the idea to do that from? One council we know it was deliberate.

Is Scotland on that thread about getting in touch with the ones who got it wrong?

Like I said a few posts back, we need to stick to the point in hand which is that this is a useful acknowledgement from government that for the time being single sex exemptions will be retained where they are necessary and proportionate.

(On the derail - what can I say to the grossly offensive posters other than "keep up the good work"? You're being spectacularly offensive to women, and anyone who has a vagina they were born with - whether or not they've ever needed reconstructive surgery, for instance after childbirth - will be pretty pissed off by your attempts to appropriate their biology. Own goal all the way.)

I can't envisage any circumstances in which it would be lawful to exclude from a female space a trans woman with a female birth certificate and who has had vaginoplasty

Which, I imagine, is exactly what the impact assessment will look at.

But at least, even raising the question of assessment, gives rise to the premise that it is necessary. There is an acknowledgement here, and that is reassuring.

Yes. It's a Titanic-sized ship, Datun, but it is slowly and perceptibly turning. That is why every single thread started here that provides illustration of this fact is derailed to toilets and spectrums of sex and the other canards.

We need to spread the message and keep things on topic. Things are looking up!

If having cancer is standard and normal then why do we treat people for it?

Cancer is caused by abnormalities of cells (as far as I'm aware - not a doc).

These are not dirty words. Part of a person can be abnormal, unsusual, non standard wihtout meaning whatever you are trying to get at about the whole person.

I myself have birth defects, which would and have been described as abnormalities, this is a fact. What is there to get upset or annoyed about?

omen who need to dilate are aware that it's not standard as it's something they didn't have to do before they got ill, and something most women do not have to do

Abso-fucking-lutley

Everyone has said their piece about this and i would be grateful if it could be left now

I can't envisage any circumstances in which it would be lawful to exclude from a female space a trans woman with a female birth certificate and who has had vaginoplasty. I am personally dubious but maybe exclusion of someone without a GRC or surgery would be possible, but excluding a woman with both is such a high barrier I cannot personally see it ever happening.

I agree Lang. Not only is the gender critical point made, it is continuously made, without any further input from me, at least.

And yes, impact assessments were always something that should have been highlighted.

As ever, the devil will be in the detail.

But at least, even raising the question of assessment, gives rise to the premise that it is necessary. There is an acknowledgement here, and that is reassuring.

Just in case anyone is unaware due to endless flailing...

The Public Sector Equality Duties are mandated by law. Public bodies are required by law to assess and account for impact on the legally protected characteristics The characteristics that are protected by the Equality Act 2010 are:

age
disability
gender reassignment
marriage or civil partnership (in employment only)
pregnancy and maternity
race
religion or belief
sex

There is no such thing as an appropriate term with regard to this. Any public body failing to apply the correct characteristics in EqA is acting unlawfully.

I had to dilate

I didnt feel any shame and i dont have a problem with it being known as a fairly rare thing for women, as a class, to do

Its more 'upsetting' to have someone going on and on about it as meetthenew is doing

I do have stretched ear lobes though. That involved a dilator and lube.

"Yes, agree with RogerAllamsFangirl . It's completely obvious what Meet is doing here."

Yes, I'm pointing out that repeatedly claiming that women don't need to dilate, and that dilation "is a uniquely transwoman experience" is wrong.

Oh and btw, I have had vaginoplasty surgery. On my vagina. No dilators involved so can't take part in that weird side convo.

It is inaccurate, offensive and highly appropriative to refer to transsexual bottom surgery as vaginoplasty - the correct term is neovaginoplasty. I'd appreciate it if you used that in future, snappity and wakame.

Women who need to dilate are aware that it's not standard as it's something they didn't have to do before they got ill, and something most women do not have to do.

Agree with others about the semantic deliberate cross-purposes and the one leg stuff.

I very much doubt that women who are ill and need to dilate see this as "standard" I would imagine they are pretty pissed off about the whole thing not least the being ill side of things.

Dilated nose reminds me of the stretched ear piercing that ends up with a milk bottle top fitting in the hole.

Is it actually possible to get a dick up your nostril...?

Fuck nose!

SardinesAreYum

"IT IS NOT STANDARD FOR A WOMAN TO NEED TO DILATE HER VAGINA TO STOP IT CLOSING UP."

So women who do have to dilate aren't standard? Can you not see why such sweeping statements are wrong?

Some women need to dilate. They are still, to borrow your words, standard women. The fact that they need to dilate does not mean that they are abnormal or, again your choice of words, not standard.

I could one day decide to enlarge one of my nostrils. I could get a dilator, lube it up, and make my nostril big enough to accommodate a dick. This, however, will never mean I have created a 'vagina' on my face. Same goes for any other hole created and maintained by the use of a dilator.

A vagina, using a dilator to maintain original shape, is just that.

Yes, agree with RogerAllamsFangirl . It's completely obvious what Meet is doing here.

The fact that there are people without legs or whose legs don't work doesn't change the fact that humans are pipedal and not mermaids.

There is a world of difference between a woman whose womb, vagina etc has a problem and a transwlman who ownes a man reproductive system - even if it's been rearranged.

So yes I mainly feel sorry for her because she has cancer and is having radiotherapy. That is the main thing that hits home really.

The gotcha piece about dilation is crass.

Also, that there is legal recourse when public bodies do not carry out impact assessments on the protected characteristic of sex.

I don't know why you are happy. There's little upside for the gender critical view - if the challenge is successful, a slap on the wrist for one local authority. But if the challenge loses, it might establish that gender is the appropriate term.

Ignoring the massive "if you had good enough plastic surgery to make an apple look just like an orange, then the apple would have turned into an orange" derail, may I just take a moment to celebrate the practical implications of this?

If a group of women, who, due to past trauma find biologically male bodies trigger PTSD, want to set up a rape crisis centre or homeless shelter that is for biological women only, they can. (This of course doesn't for a moment mean all rape crisis centres and homeless shelters have to be so - just that there's space for such a place if a group of volunteers identify an need and set it up).

If it turns out that a particular sport can only be played safely and fairly if it is restricted to biologically female bodied players - then it can be so restricted, legally. Which isn't to say there isn't a place for other forms of sport and other events which can be set up to be more broadly inclusive, again, just that it's lawful to set up proportionate restrictions.

It hopefully means that prison governors and prison psychologists have also been listened to when they point out that any transfers between the male and female prison estate should be looked at carefully, and on a case by case basis with gatekeeping in place, not via a blanket policy of transferring anyone who self-IDs regardless of the risk to other prisoners.

I'm reading this as a quite major win. (Hence the desperate "apples are oranges" attempt at a derail.)