Government Announcement

Sex is biological DNA. Most people will and have always respected that fact.

Good luck with that.

Sample from today’s opining:

The only conceivable route out of the moral quagmire is practical rather than ideological, and — to her credit — this is how Mordaunt intends to proceed. As far as possible she will delegate decision-making on access to single-sex spaces to individual institutions and groups — while insisting upon rigorous accountability.

She will endeavour to frame the debate afresh as a negotiation between citizens rather than a dogmatic punch-up between identity groups. In so doing she will be fighting the current of contemporary culture which — turbo-charged by social media — encourages individuals to cluster in tribes and yell abuse at one another.

Her insistence upon a different, respectful and genuinely pluralist approach is both politically bold and supremely counter-cultural. All power to her elbow’.

This reads to me like: ‘Women, Be Nice’ and also looks like he or Penny Mordaunt’s press spinners are trying to re-present her as somehow being the architect of the 2010 equality Act, ie these excellent measures he praises are rights that we already have under that Act- they are not new. Whole point being that govt are saying that they WON’T change the 2010 Act. I love how he’s trying to spin doing nothing as being some great act of innovation.

I saw that Ex-Spectator editor and general Tory insider Matthew D’Ancona has an article about this in George Osborne’s Evening Standard in London

www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/equalities-minister-is-right-to-insist-on-civility-in-the-trans-rights-debate-a3873376.html

He has form for articles that minimise this debate though (from 2017):

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/tories-transgender-debate-justne-greening-gender-recognition-act

Expand Alexa?

Totally disagree with this

Ready and waiting Ally McBeagle

I don’t mind if the third space is for us rather than the gender reassigned: as long as there’s an exclusive sex space.

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

That is really encouraging news crunchymint. Gives me hope :)

Does any know what is happening with Girl Guides trans? Seems that would combine female safety, child protection and the female-shortlist type scenarios.

Blimey who on earth would ever have thought we'd be thinking women might have to sue GG for discrimination against women?!!

@Elletorro good point lol. Would be kind of funny to see M&S shocked by the increased demand for expensive solitary cubicles from "exclusive" women who have probably never caused them any issues before. I just worry that many AFAB woman won't know what their rights are and obviously this whole issue extends beyond changing rooms.

Interesting idea Elletorro. I'll PM you with some thoughts.

DietCoke

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.

I don’t mind if the third space is for us rather than the gender reassigned: as long as there’s an exclusive sex space. I can take the public shame of not being woke. I’m not cool anyway

When it comes to arguing the case of justifiable proportionate and legitimate aims for a single-sex space (i.e excluding mtf transsexuals and males who self-id as women due to their innate female gender identity), all the other side would have to say is that they provided any "problem" AFAB women who felt violated with the option of using a separate facility. There are no public shared female-only spaces anywhere, anymore and AFAB women aren't entitled to them. I'm angry, but nothing can be done. Well done men. Laugh it up.

Ally McBeagle

I think that there are grounds to sue if exemptions not invoked.

Not invoking exemptions is a PCP which disproportionately negatively affects women. Only defence is objective justification; proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aims. We argue that removing dignity, privacy and safeguarding for women is not proportionate.

M&S would be a handy target or the YHA

Could easily be a multi party claim too which would give good leverage

The law is becoming increasingly irrelevant as more and more organisations declare that they will treat people based on self-id. In the end it won't matter that an organization has the legal right to offer single-sex spaces and services, if they are publicly vilified for doing so.

We need a brave barrister to step up and offer their services for a reduced rate to women's causes.

But I do think though that it could be challenged by self-representation by any reasonably competant and logical (and brave) person. The law is actually very straight forward. It is all the other stuff that is intimidating, and intentionally so.

No need for case law. It is in the statute.

Sex is biological DNA. Most people will and have always respected that fact.

If you 'pass' then you may be satisfying your own needs by not repsecting boundaries, but at the expense of deceiving others or by taking their silence as consent. That woudn't wash with sex or any other transaction.

Women do not have the same leverage where they think that a single sex service should be provided

Nor anything like the level of funding for legal challenges from donations by rich billionaires.

And religious organisations are totally exempt.

Is this true? Why does the protected characteristic of religion trump how someone feels but not the protected characteristic of sex?

Not if there is a proportionate need to restrict the space to women only. Those with GRCs that state their legal gender is female can be excluded under those circumstances.
There is no case law to support that claim.

It's in the legislation. It is effective law whether there is case law or not.

The real problem, as pp have identified, is that if a business creates a single sex service which is not open to transpeople, then transpeople can threaten to sue arguing that it is not proportionate for it to be single sex, and most businesses will cave. Women do not have the same leverage where they think that a single sex service should be provided.

Even posting it on a women's rights forum gets someone popping up with legal warnings FGS. Vancouver Rape Crisis had a court action against them trying to do that and had to spend 100,000 in legal costs. How are organisations supposed to apply that in practice?

Passing should be irrelevant.
Sex-segregation is not about what you look like. Looks do not determine whether any given person is a threat to a vulnerable group. In fact, it makes the vulnerable group even more vulnerable if you conceal an important fact in order to access these areas.