Government Announcement

Oh. I guess TIM? These new rules are just basically an opportunity for TRAs to shut down discussion by using the report button aren’t they?

Which term is banned?

Post after post using banned a term.

This is nonsense, the ERA CANNOT coexist with any kind of gender recognition.

Currently a GRC allows a person to legally change their SEX (not their gender). As far as the law is concerned a transgender man with a GRC IS a female. There is no way for the law to on the one hand say that these people are female and on the other hand exclude them from female spaces and female legal protections.

The only way to preserve the ERA is to go back to the gender recognition act and change it so that SEX is left as the actual sex and an addition signifier of gender is added if they like (which does NOT say male/female or man/woman - those are sexes. Since gender is a spectrum not related to sex I suggest a scale of 1 to 10, masculine to girly, including decimals, so people can identify as 5.8 or whatever they like). This gender signifier would be completely irrelevant in terms of sex segregation (as well all know sex and gender aren't the same or even closely related).

No Oleanna it doesn’t because that will not protect them from legal action. Even if they do all those things they can still be sued by TRAs for excluding end they will be forced to justify.

I think people are just supposed to accept that 'identifying' as the opposite sex magically changes them into that.

This is what is really baffling about the whole situation. Supposedly rational adults believing in magical thinking. Saying you don't believe in the magical thinking because you have applied rational thought to what you are being told, somehow turns you into a 'bigot'.

Doesn't the law mean that an organisation that wants to use the exemptions has to show that they have given it due consideration before invoking them? So a women's refuge would need to have a decent paper trail that shows their rationale for remaining single sex, along with robust guidance for staff on what to do if a transwoman seeks employment there, or seeks to access their services. (I'm sure they must already have some of this stuff in relation to male children - at what age can they be accommodated in a shelter, and when would it be proportionate to separate a child from its mother?)

The problem is that all the diversity training that the fishy group and others have been delivering to the police / schools / councils etc etc has been silent on the exemptions, so many organisations don't know that they exist - they have simply been told that TWAW, and have changed their policies accordingly

happydappy I know it's unreal. I think people are just supposed to accept that 'identifying' as the opposite sex magically changes them into that. I honestly cannot see any rational explanation.

I don't understand how GG can allow boys to sleep in same accommodation as girls & not inform the parents....how can that work from a safeguarding point of view? We don't have any mixed dormitories in boarding schools so why is it deemed ok for a GG residential trip?

Well in that case I've got PTSD and so does DD. And my mum, my sister, my mate Catherine, all the women on the school run, my neighbour, her kids...

It’s reminding me of this quote from SupermatchGame

If you see trans women as men and feel that you are being forced to accept them in female space I can see how that could feel like having your boundaries violated

Really great to see the same kind of empathy and consideration for, as SupermatchGame put it, women who “see transwomen as men”.

You could be right Leah but it’s still a big deal for someone to go from

transwomen are women, and segregation is abhorrent, repugnant and vile^
to
^transwomen and women have different needs and sometimes women need segregated space away from transwomen

This doesn’t mean a lot. It means they’re getting in the thin end of the wedge as part of a softening up process. They know what they want might not happen now so they’re doing it piecemeal. Even if this concession is made now it won’t stay.

Without commenting on the rights and wrongs of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, this is just an example:

When gay marriage was still illegal a lot of opposition to gay marriage centred around the fact it was thought it was going to undermine traditional marriage. So it was introduced as civil partnerships. That dropped a lot of opposition and got it through.

So then marriage was proposed for gay people. And of course everybody said “Well it’s just a name change of course”.

And then we had the court case yesterday which said that civil partnerships must be available to heterosexual couples if they’re available to gay couples. (Which the government must have had a good idea would happen).

Now, I wouldn’t agree with their views, but if you were somebody who at the outset of this had believed marriage would be undermined by the introduction of gay civil partnerships, then yesterday you would certainly have believed you were vindicated.

But the piecemeal introduction followed by use of the legal system has effectively swept this away.

There might be a concession for now, but I don’t believe it will stay. It’s a point on the road, not a destination.

I agree Lemon, sounds like progress

It’s really great we’re at a point in the discussion where both sides recognise that there should be separate spaces for women who are uncomfortable sharing with transwomen.

So while we might disagree on whether there should be any kind of gatekeeping to allow women to access this space, the principle of this segregate space is no longer in dispute at least

Presumably women would simply need to identify as someone with "issues" or PTSD or whatever and that would be all it takes?

I mean this is rubbish though isn't it.

It seems to say that women and girls aren't allowed to be separate from men in any circs, until they have been abused by men, and then they are allowed to be separate. Why not cut the middle man and let women and girls be separate from men in circs where there is a higher risk of men doing something? We'll put you in with the men until you're traumatised and then you are allowed to leave seems very harsh!

What I said was that a strict space in some circumstances makes sense for those women with a particular problem eg a relevant diagnosis of PTSD. It should never be extended to be something simply for those women who merely dislike being with trans women. There is a gaping difference.

Well that’s not quite what you said, you said women who have “issues” or an “actual problem” sharing spaces with transwomen should have a segregated space. Here’s your quote below.

Because if for instance there were 6 rooms with (say) half kept for women with actual issues of being with trans women, the service could be inclusive while still meeting the need if some women had an actual problem.

That’s a bit different from a medical diagnosis. But if you think women should have a letter from their doctor that says they should be allowed to access sex segregated facilities that’s something I’m sure we could explore.

I’d be happy with that. Marks and Spencer’s would start out with one solitary cubicle for us “exclusive” women and likely soon find they’d need a few more.

If there's a unisex space, and I'm with my kids, then I would go in it. If there's a single sex space and I'm on my own, or if DP is here and he can be with the kids (they're boys) then I will go in the single sex one. The single sex facilities would have to be bloody terrible before I'd go in the unisex alone.

Snappity - so those women with PTSD are allowed to want a single sex space, and some males are allowed in the female space if they're vulnerable - this is all getting very complicated, and impossible to police. How about we go back to how it was, where XY go one way and XX go another. It's so easy to police that a 2 year old would manage it.

Snappity: "Transwomen are women and totally belong in the women's changing room, because they are no different from women."
Also Snappity: "Some women with a particular problem like PTSD might be distressed by sharing a changing room with transwomen, so deserve a separate space".

I don't understand, Snappity. If transwomen are no different from women, why would the women with PTSD need a separate space?

No exceptions for women who don't want to share the changing room with men jerking themselves off while watching women take their clothes off?
That is certainly one way to drive women out of the public sphere. Require them to prove they have PTSD to get a bit of privacy and dignity in the locker room.

Strangely enough this is what Snappity was advocating for on another thread. So it could perhaps prove popular with both sides.

What I said was that a strict space in some circumstances makes sense for those women with a particular problem eg a relevant diagnosis of PTSD. It should never be extended to be something simply for those women who merely dislike being with trans women. There is a gaping difference.