Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

366 replies

mammyoftwo · 25/06/2018 11:01

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5880533/amp/Women-allowed-bar-transgender-people-female-changing-rooms-toilets-ministers.html?ico=amp_mostReadNews

Apologies for the source, it's from the daily fail. However, if true it's definitely a victory worth celebrating!!

OP posts:
CreatingCharacters · 25/06/2018 19:06

They will also screenshot it.

I hope their goading is taken into account..

BeyondFemaleElitist · 25/06/2018 19:03

😂

I think that might get you a strike, juzza

JuzzaL · 25/06/2018 19:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LangCleg · 25/06/2018 18:59

SardinesAreYum - they don't need to understand from the get go. That is the whole point of impact assessments - they reveal the holes in what are possibly well-meaning policies. They don't understand because they have not carried out impact assessments. And if they did, it wouldn't matter how well they understand - it would be there in black and white: this policy is bad for WAG and therefore has implications for equality duties with regard to the protected characteristic of sex. The problem isn't the lack of understanding: the problem is not taking the lawful steps to get that understanding. That is why they are open to legal challenge.

Bowlofbabelfish · 25/06/2018 18:53

How we go about organising this kind of strategic litigation, I don't know.

Me neither, but I’ll donate when someone does.

Surely this would be a fairly easy win for a firm?

spontaneousgiventime · 25/06/2018 18:52

SardinesAreYum Believe me they understand. They fully understand. They just don't like it.

spontaneousgiventime · 25/06/2018 18:50

I think crowdfunding will be a way we can do this. We need to make sure sex based exemptions remain just that. I'm sure there will be Barristers who are as keen as we are to get this clarified who would help. It's just finding them.

SardinesAreYum · 25/06/2018 18:48

thing is you get stuff like GG repeating what they have been told

"trans girls are girls so there is no need for any specific safeguarding"

they will have taken the same to apply to anything allowed by EA as sex has been changed to gender in so many places + general belief that anyone should be accepted as the sex they say they are.

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. Same with "women only" shortlists - that was a SEX based allowance, as soon as they allow males in (no GRC) they invalidate the lists existence in the first place, there is no reason not to allow men. It also could be seen as discriminaiton against transmen - trans being a protected characteristic and what short lists can they access? They are far less visible in public life than transwomen.

littlbrowndog · 25/06/2018 18:48

Yeps ballsballs it’s great they are

The snowball effect I hope

LangCleg · 25/06/2018 18:47

How do we do this?

Crowdfunding legal challenges.

We really do need something similar to the Centre for Women's Justice, which takes legal cases about VAWG. The same thing, but for equalities failures on the protected characteristic of sex.

How we go about organising this kind of strategic litigation, I don't know.

littlbrowndog · 25/06/2018 18:47

Say again ?

ballsballsballs · 25/06/2018 18:46

I'm glad mainstream media is picking this up.

Snappity · 25/06/2018 18:44

Snappity is trying their damnedest to derail this thread. Please don't let them.

No. But if you are putting aside legal sex based on birth certificates and relying on some biological criteria, those criteria apply to all women equally - and must do so if they are criteria. So if, for example, the criterion which was objectively justified "cannot be masculine looking" then that is the criterion and all masculine-looking women would need to be excluded equally.

BeyondFemaleElitist · 25/06/2018 18:39

Happens, it took me three reads then to realise you meant assault by "battery" and weren't referring to Leon and his need of a charger (sob, who never came back...)

littlbrowndog · 25/06/2018 18:38

Yeps. Seen that

spontaneousgiventime · 25/06/2018 18:37

Snappity is trying their damnedest to derail this thread. Please don't let them.

Snappity · 25/06/2018 18:36

Sex based exceptions can still apply to people who hold a GRC.

Of course, just as they can apply to any woman.

spontaneousgiventime · 25/06/2018 18:36

The reason these articles pleased me is simple. They are now out there that sex based exemptions do still apply and it's perfectly legal to apply them. There has been so much uncertainty these articles will clear some of that up.

HappensInHumans · 25/06/2018 18:35

TwoCocks could cause more bomb devices and battery by his stoking the fire against women.

BeyondFemaleElitist · 25/06/2018 18:34

Oh here is the petition btw, in case no one linked it yet...
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/214118

littlbrowndog · 25/06/2018 18:34

Re mapping. Blah blah blah

littlbrowndog · 25/06/2018 18:34

Snappity wat u banging on about ?

spontaneousgiventime · 25/06/2018 18:33

The fact the petition reached over 10,000 so got a response was great news. Being linked we can only hope more sign. The more who sign the more the Government are going to have to be careful. It's difficult to row back, easier not to set sail.

MIdgebabe · 25/06/2018 18:33

Sex based exceptions can still apply to people who hold a GRC.