WPUK and the attack on the Equality Act exemptions

to suggest that being legally femal makes you biologically female is clearly ridiculous - the law isn’t magic.

Your comment about the law made me laugh. Clearly it isn’t magic. I so cannot believe MB won. When I was younger, I was led to believe the differences in pension age was brought into being because women are physically weaker and to represent the challenges their bodies go through during childbirth. Idk if it’s true but that cannot be said for a trans person.

There's no debate: her sex is female.

I think there is a difference between 'treated as' and 'is'

Just as there are differences between the common usage of many words, and their legal definition.

Because to suggest that being legally female makes you biologically female is clearly ridiculous - the law isn't magic.

Snappity : there's no point using words you don't understand the meaning of. I'm sure you agree. Unless you know what 'female' means, there's no point in you using it. Please refrain.

Lemon that explains it beautifully. A no brainer indeed.

You do not have to debate being a woman. You are one. Your biology, the inequality you lived, the knowledge you have that came from this. You do not need to debate whether you are a woman

And if you read the judgement that is what the ECJ has said about MB. There's no debate: her sex is female.

I cannot believe what is now happening in schools in Scotland. There appears to be no joined up thinking. And what about the results of the recent public consultation. I filled it in despite being English and not living in Scotland. Did no one think it prudent to consider this first?

@AomisHades

I think it is probably normal. However I think this situation is unique in that the particular ideology of “transwomen are women” or in this case “transgirls are girls” means it is impossible to make any distinction between transgirls and girls and therefore impossible to assess the impact on these two different groups separately. This would not be the case for eg a disability organisation. They would be quite capable of assessing the impact of any of their suggested guidance on all children as they have no ideology which prevents this and eg supporting disabled young people does not conflict with the fundamental human rights of others.
So I don’t think this will have come up before in the same way.

Also, the children’s commissioner is presented with guidelines from a reputable organisation whose production have been funded by Scotgov and endorsed by them.
It’s obviously a no-brainer, quite literally. Stamp and sign off without engaging brain. Then they are sent to the local authority who sees they are produced by a reputable organisation and endorsed by Scotgov AND the children’s commissioner. Stamp and sign off without engaging brain. Then they are sent to individual schools who see they are produced by a reputable organisation, endorsed by Scotgov, the children’s commissioner AND their LA. Stamp and sign off without engaging brain.

It’s basically a massive pass the buck exercise with Scotgov essentially leaving schools high and dry.

Lol at the BBC. Ridiculously obvious agenda.

lang Absolutely. I mean, just look at the rage that occurs when this topic is even mentioned hereabouts. How many red flags do we need to say that women subject to DV need their own spaces?

exactly ......this is what spurs me on to do something about it.

I have to ask why mumsnet has 'conception' and 'pregnancy' as one of its go to links. Clearly this is anti trans.

One of the top stories when I went to the BBC website.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44612117

'Transgender woman wins pension court battle'

To quote her: 'In the sight of God.'

I can't get past this
Scotland's Children's commissioner said: "We did not undertake and therefore do not hold" any research looking at how other pupils might be affected by the guidance.

An actual quote confirming they didn't do a single bit of research on the effects of the guidelines on the vast majority of pupils? Is that normal? Do they do this for other minority groups?

You should propose that to the government in the next consultation snappity. Obviously it means the opposite of clarity, but we are all used to your mix ups by now.

From the thread www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3284251-Lisa-Muggeridge-Suspended-by-Twitter-and-Quoting-her-breaches-MN-Guidelines?

Lisa Muggeridge Comment:
"You do not have to debate being a woman. You are one. Your biology, the inequality you lived, the knowledge you have that came from this. You do not need to debate whether you are a woman. Or their definition of woman. Outside being clear you do not see yourself reflected in them, you do not need to debate this. They do.
When you are discussing systems and laws that evolved over 70 years to protect women and girls you do not need to centre their identity in that discussion. It is irrelevant to that discussion. Those systems were fought for and created by women you dont know, they did that so you dont have to. You do not need to have arguments that are already done and are reflected in euqality legislation.

Do not have arguments you dont need to have. It is ridiculous to use failure to validate males as an insult. It is ridiculous to treat ‘you didnt think of males when you thought about inequality so you are a TERF’ as valid. You dont need to defend the right of women to self assembly without male supervision, it is yours already, they need to explain why they think it should end. If hearing about their male biology is offensive, that is not your fault. THey are male. That cannot be altered. You are not required to repeat things you know to be untrue because of the threat of violence and coercion. You are not required to be ‘inclusive’ and ‘nice’ at a cost of your own safety and rights. EVER...." continues

Lets just take one of those

Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

On the basis of this judgment, a woman like MB without a GRC has sex = female. So in statistics, in response to a question about sex she should answer female. But how long does someone need to have lived as a woman to become sex = female? A month? A year? Two years? Five years? It's unclear. That's bad for statistics. So to improve data gathering we need to remove any obstacles preventing people from getting a GRC so that there clarity on sex for statistics.

Excellent thread thankyou

Thank you for sharing your opinion.

Damn said there was never any intention to change, now you are saying there is a decision not to change? You need to get your team sorted out properly. Tons of flailing about going on here.

I haven't said there was an intention to change. I am just saying that the claim of a "victory" for WPUK is not made out.

Respectful and evidence-based discussion

I think Snappity many posters would reasonably demand similar from this discussion here:

These are WPUK demands:

Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard.

The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended.

A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act which allow or single sex services or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job (such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice.

Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.

Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.

Snappity, you and damn are undermining each other here.

Damn said there was never any intention to change, now you are saying there is a decision not to change? You need to get your team sorted out properly. Tons of flailing about going on here.

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62016CJ0451&qid=1530012353353&from=EN

All change. It still has to go back to the Supreme Court but in this judgment it seems that a GRC is not necessary to acquire the entitlement of sex = female (or sex = male as the case maybe): living as a woman for a period is sufficient.

Has nobody here considered that maybe the Government decision not to change EA 2010 isn't a victory for WPUK? Maybe the Government decided trans people don't need more protection in the Equality Act because those rights have been achieved through the courts instead?

This also fundamentally changes the Self-ID debate. We now have a situation where, after an indeterminate time, someone acquires the rights of sex = female (or sex = male) anyway. Not having a date for that is admistratively inconvenient for things like pensions so the best outcome for the Government is to streamline the Gender Recognition Act and encourage people in that position to get a GRC so that there is a clear date.