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

From what I've read it's self ID on hospital wards isn't it, despite the commitments over the years to single sex.

As with anything else consideration needs to be given to everyone, I'd not think it right to put someone in with the men or the women in some cases, so private room is the answer

But in a cash strapped NHS how will that work +
If you know saying you are trans gets you a private room, loads of chancers will say it.

The difficulty is that conversations around middle roads / is there a way to keep everyone happy & comfy are brushed aside and deemed transphobic

As nothing less than total inclustion in everything single sex is deemed as reasonable and fuck what that means for women and girls.

I want the Equality Act amended so that it's a duty, not a right, of organisations to retain single sex provision.

Yes. This is absolutely what we want and need.

Sardines agree. So the Equality Act will stay? Well, it's not protecting us now. I want more. I want the Equality Act amended so that it's a duty, not a right, of organisations to retain single sex provision.

This.

What should matter to you is the experience of women - here needing to dilate. And that applies equally to trans women who are women.

It's not a female experience. It's not comparable to a woman's experience of dilation due to cancer. I do believe it's one deserving of sympathy. Gender dysphoria so strong that you feel you have to surgically modify a healthy body into a simulacra of a woman's must be extremely difficult to manage. As is cervical cancer. Which is totally different, being a disease of the female reproductive system a male person won't get. And different from say, a malignant melanoma, or lung cancer.

You confuse me Snappity, but at least we agree on something lol

This is not about gender identity, it is about safeguarding.

This was something I pointed out today, it isn't prejudice it's safeguarding to keep intact people who present opposite to their birth sex away from children when they are in intimate spaces.

I hope you're right. Including gender identity and gender expression in the EA would be ridiculous until someone can give a definition of those terms based in material reality that is independent of any time period and/or geographical location.

I hope so too. Gender identity needs many more restrictions than gender reassignment and I don't think that has been thought through.

an explanation as to why teenagers need to be able to get GRCs.

No. They do not. A male child can still impregnate a female child. Male children and female children need to be segregated for sleeping and showering. This is not about gender identity, it is about safeguarding.

Maria Miller took serious advice from ATH, they demand the release of all trans prisoners...Ian Huntley anyone?

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.

Really?

I don't think the court gave adequate consideration to the implications of allowing men to become legally women whilst keeping their male genitalia.

Indeed.

These people have no respect for boundaries

This. I find it astonishing that women make it clear that some words or comparisons are offensive and yet some posters continue to use them. If it helps it doesn't go unnoticed

"There was a huge push in 2009 to get gender identity included in the Equality Act. It failed then and I think any new attempt today would still fail."

I hope you're right. Including gender identity and gender expression in the EA would be ridiculous until someone can give a definition of those terms based in material reality that is independent of any time period and/or geographical location.

And transwomen still don't have them.

So? Can whether it is or is not OK for someone to use a particular space truly depend on whether they have a Bartholin Gland?

Going back to Sardine's example upthread of all women shortlists - I always think the Warchowskis are the perfect example of why moving to "gender" rather than sex makes a mockery of the whole idea.

They made probably the most influential sci fi film of that decade (I personally have always thought it was a bit over-rated, but there's no disputing the fact that it was of enormous importance). Thing is, they pitched, got the funding, cast, directed, marketed the whole trilogy while presenting as the men they were born and brought up as. Is there a chance in hell that two women would have managed this? Not on your nelly.

So too AWS. It's very telling that one of the possible beneficiaries of the rule change is someone who's already had one bite at the cherry as a man (and is lying about age and previous experience).

I think it's very important to be able to say "why is this measure in place? Safety? Privacy? Bodily autonomy? Redressing an imbalance? If it's redressing an imbalance, what sort of imbalance - the lack of women due to sex discrimination, or the lack of trans people due to genuine transphobia?"

I’m assuming by the tedious drivel posted that meetthenew is another incarnation of wakame?

So all this BS about there being nothing to see is BS. They seem to be pretending none of this was captured by the inquiry and changes to the EA2010 were not the sole purpose of Maria Millers Private Member's Bill.

Indeed. And we all noted who provided written evidence, whose written evidence was ignored, and who was invited to give evidence in person. And we all know that that very consultation warned about dangers of opportunistic prisoners such as Ian Huntley and so we also know that Maria Miller knew about this danger and ignored it.

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.

Someone who genuinely cannot envisage such circumstances is either spectacularly unimaginative; hard of thinking; or disingenuous

No. They are glands etc located near the vagina but are not part of the vagina.

They are in the vestibule if you're being picky about it. And transwomen still don't have them.

There was a huge push in 2009 to get gender identity included in the Equality Act. It failed then and I think any new attempt today would still fail.

That's a very useful summary, Picasso.

I'm another who'd be up for crowd funding a legal challenge if we could find a suitable test case.

Thing is that they dont' seem to understand that by allowing in male children (transgirls) but keeping out some female children (transboys and gender fluid) they are no longer a single SEX organisation and so there is no law that allows them to operate in that fashion.

That's a really excellent point but it is also an explanation as to why teenagers need to be able to get GRCs.

I haven't seen that point made about all-women political shortlists before. It is interesting and you might technically be right but all women shortlists are contentious anyway and I don't think feminism would be well-served by a challenge - especially as it might require a man to challenge his exclusion.

There has been a neutralising of intentions somewhat, from what was gathered in this initial inquiry.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf
House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee
Transgender Equality
First Report of Session 2015–16

This has probably been posted before but there were lots of recommendations to remove EA2010 exemptions, all documented here and all recommended by trans people, and in parallel with the GRA update.

The report also recommended changing the EA2010 to say Gender Identity thereby including cross dressing and gender fluid people

Mermaids was the source of this section:
106. Another issue raised with us was the current inability of the EHRC to pursue a complaint by a person aged under 18 without their parents’ consent (see Chapter Six).112
107. The inclusion of “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 was a huge step forward and has clearly improved the position of trans people. However, it is clear to us that the use of the terms “gender reassignment” and “transsexual” in the Act is outdated and misleading; and may not cover wider members of the trans community.
108. The protected characteristic in respect of trans people under the Equality Act should be amended to that of “gender identity”. This would improve the law by bringing the
language in the Act up to date, making it compliant with Council of Europe Resolution 2048; and make it significantly clearer that protection is afforded to anyone who might experience discrimination because of their gender identity.
109. The protections afforded by the Equality Act 2010 are intended to be available to all, including children and adolescents. The Equality and Human Rights Commission must be able to investigate complaints of discrimination raised by children and adolescents
without the requirement to have their parents’ consent

In response to this Maria Miller went ahead to try to change the EA2010 and introduced a private member’s bill in the last parliament with the aim of pushing through the recommendation to change the protected characteristic to Gender Identity despite lack of formal government support. It never got past the first reading because Theresa May called a snap election for June 2017.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-01/debates/38CFE29B-D261-45DF-9C31-0546E3CBC3B8/PointsOfOrder

So all this BS about there being nothing to see is BS. They seem to be pretending none of this was captured by the inquiry and changes to the EA2010 were not the sole purpose of Maria Millers Private Member's Bill.

It seems from the meeting last week on the EA that changes are not going to happen quickly now.