Michigan court concludes that trans women are NOT women

I'm absolutely convinced huge swathes of the nation have no clue about the current law, or the proposals to make gender change simpler (no bad thing), but also more open to abuse.

I suspect the Equality Act (with regard to trans) doesn't affect most people's day to day life, and they may unwittingly already share changing and toilet facilities with trans people.

The worry I have, is that 'trans' is becoming such an umbrella term for substantial numbers of men who get sexual gratification from adopting a female identity. Perhaps unwittingly, many seem to have convinced themselves that they are actual women, and have actual female thoughts and emotions (whatever those are!).
Seemingly a disproportionate number of them are attracted to women. This is a predominantly male trait they choose to ignore, and instead interpret it is a less likely female bisexual or lesbian one. Curious that.

Whilst in principle, I have no issue with self-ID, in practice, it affords predators or misguided transwomen very easy access to female spaces. I don't want to hinder the ease with which genuine trans people make a transition, or declare themselves as a new gender, but I most certainly want to inhibit the ease with which abusers can do so.

The two are unfortunately mutually exclusive.

As has been repeatedly mentioned, the EA exceptions have to be applied on a case by case basis. Any gym that bans all trans women from the women's changing room is breaking equality law

All very nice but if we don't want to see male bodies and penis in our changing areas we're not obliged at all to return to that gym. Businesses are about money and disruption of income won't be allowed to last for too long. A way will be found.

Transwomen aren't going to be banned, and they don't need to be. There are 2 Transwomen at the gym I attend. They transitioned a long while ago, 1 was attending mid-transition so of course you could see the gradual changes taking place. No-one was fussed.

All this will self-implode sooner rather than later, once a larger number of people see the real-life impact. I barely know anyone who discusses this in real life - not even ex BIL who is Self-ID, but doesn't make a fuss about wanting to be in womens' spaces

When reality of boys and girls, women and male bodied with penis Self-ID in same changing room amongst other things, there are just too many people out there who won't go for it. I doubt any law compelling them to do so will stand in its present form.

So SarahAr wants to call gyms and mislead them about how the Equality Act works, and would like us to helpfully provide a list of gyms that don't comply with Sarah's preferred dogma to call?

Nah, mate. Not going to do that.

(Also, flail away! It's a bit obvious, though.)

"Penis or no penis"

Somehow with my petty head on, I agree with this. Let's see what interesting reasoning they could come up with for not taking their dicks next door

As ever it will all come down to money. If women don't want penis in gym changing area then gyms will have to jump thru hoops to (try) to keep our custom won't they. Wonder how they'll do that...

Witty you're not allowed to ask for a GRC. And if the birth certificate has been changed they can just say they don't have a GRC because they were born a woman. Meaning the EA is nigh on impossible to use if you do need to exclude a transwoman.

If self ID comes in anyone, with no safekeeping, can get a GRC. So all women together. Even though 80%+ retain original genitalia.

Surely the EA's exemptions are just fine as they are.

A person with a gender recognition certificate....

No GRC, no admittance. So yes, the legislation as it stands means there may well be trans people in their grc-gender changing rooms / services. But there shouldn't be people of the opposite sex who don't have grc.

Or have I missed something here?

Taken from the guidance on Equality Law:
and
Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes.

Does the Equality Law define 'gender'?
Does it say how gender is different to sex?

Brilliant news! Let's hope this continues and sense starts to prevail everywhere!

No - nobody really believes transwomen are women. It's just a chant, a Tshirt slogan.

Misogynists like Owen Jones and Dr Harrop wouldn't be so hot on transwomen's rights if they really thought they were women. They stick up for the fellow penises. Penis rights to do what they like.

No one believes that stuff Sarah r. They really really don’t

^^ This

I agree. Given that most of these males are considered male in law as well as male bodied, it could possibly be construed as discrimination. As with AWS.

I think it has got to a position whereby organisations should declare what the legitimate aim of their single sex provision is. This will allow informed decisions to be made about who should and shouldn't access them.

Sarah AR What is the trans inclusive argument for single sex provision? What legitimate aim is there for single sex provision that includes both males and females?

Sarah AR

Therefore, you could expect to find trans women in any changing room in the UK. And this is as it should be. Trans women are women.

It is hard to see how single sex provision/facilities that are segregated based on differences in sexed bodies remain justifiable (proportionate means to a legitimate aim) if they allow just some oppositely sexed bodies in to them. If a changing room is allowed to be single single sex to afford females privacy, dignity and safety, but allows people with male sexed bodies in because they have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, couldn't male bodied people, with the protected characteristic of sex, say that seeing as the facility is allowing both female sexed bodied people and male sexed bodied people access, the legitimate aim is nonsense and therefore they (with the protected characteristic of sex) are being discriminated against!

If they are transexual and have a grc are the key words on this example, at present most in the transgender community do not meet this criteria

Regardless of SarahAr's views, they are right in as much as the law is effectively forcing businesses to treat transwomen as women, providing they have a GRC. Soon, the GRC might be effectively abandoned.

Of course, service providers will not want to announce this issue, they'd rather let it slip under the radar as it's likely to have a negative impact on business, but equally, there's no obligation to state the obvious - that the service provider is 'law abiding'.

Many of us might not like this, but it is the reality of how things already are.

Actually SarahAr, you're only half right.

The law still does allow for objective separation of transexual's in changing rooms, but it must justify this (which won't be easy for most services).

Taken from the guidance on Equality Law:

The changing facilities in a women-only gym are located in a room that is only accessible by stairs. The gym owner suggests to disabled users of the gym with mobility impairments that they can change in a corner of the gym itself. This is unlikely to be a reasonable alternative method of making the service available, since it may significantly infringe upon people's dignity.

However, providing an alternative private room to change in may be a reasonable adjustment.

You must also avoid discriminating against transsexual people. Treat a transsexual person as belonging to the sex in which the transsexual person presents (as opposed to the physical sex they were born with) unless you can objectively justify treating them differently.

For example:

A clothes shop has separate changing areas for men and for women with individual cubicles. The shop concludes it would not be appropriate or necessary to exclude a transsexual woman from the female changing room as the privacy and decency of all users can be assured by the provision of the separate cubicles.

Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from someone of their preferred gender, they should normally be treated according to their acquired gender unless there are strong reasons not to do so.

Where someone has a gender recognition certificate they should be treated in their acquired gender for all purposes.

and again

Generally, a business which is providing separate services or single-sex services should treat a transsexual person according to the sex in which the transsexual person presents (as opposed to the physical sex they were born with), as it is unlawful to discriminate against someone because of gender reassignment. Although a business can exclude a transsexual person or provide them with a different service, this is only if it can objectively justify doing so.

A business may have a policy about providing its service to transsexual users, but this policy must still be applied on a case-by-case basis. It is necessary to balance the needs of the transsexual person for the service, and the disadvantage to them if they are refused access to it, against the needs of other users, and any disadvantage to them, if the transsexual person is allowed access. To do this may require discussion with service users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice.

SarahAr, transwomen being in women’s changing rooms compromises their right to privacy, dignity and safety.

We don’t want you there.

The fact that you push to be there despite our objections speaks volumes.

You write to the EHRC or whatever. But forcing women to comply will never make them accept you.

Yeah I did when I seen Sarah r trotting out that one

No one believes that stuff Sarah r. They really really don’t

I stopped reading at the transwomen are women fallacy. I imagine most people did.

As has been repeatedly mentioned, the EA exceptions have to be applied on a case by case basis. Any gym that bans all trans women from the women's changing room is breaking equality law.

Please do post their names on MN and I will ask the EHRC to write to them to remind them of their legal responsibilities.

Therefore, you could expect to find trans women in any changing room in the UK. And this is as it should be. Trans women are women.

As to the need for firms to put this in their contract or put up warning signs. Turns out that courts expect firms to follow the law. Fun that. So the idea that a court would rule against a firm in the UK for failing to put "we follow the law" in their contracts is laughable.

Floral

I was assigned with brown eyes at birth, but as I grew older, I realized that internally, my sense of eyecolour was actually green. So I identify as a green eyed girl now, and find myself incredibly upset if someone dedicates Van Morrison songs to me.

Do many babies change gender/sex as they are born? Makes you wonder why they bother with scans, in utero testing, genetics testing etc if babies do something as drastic as changing their biological sex at birth. Is there any difference between vaginal and Caesarean deliveries?

assigned male at birth

I know - it's ludicrous. It's a observation - "assigned" makes it sound like luck of the draw or random.

I went on one of those machines at the gym yesterday - the one that weighs you, measure muscle mass, and fat and stuff. Notably it asks "gender at birth M/F?"

Clearly because there is a measurable, physical, biological difference between males and females - which is not altered by taking cross sex hormones, or surgery.

I'm guessing if a transwoman selected 'F' instead of 'M' the results would be rather skewed.

Great news, but did anyone read the actual ruling? The incursion of the trans narrative into even legal speak is downright scary!

"Plaintiff's actions indicate that she strongly preferred a locker room and a restroom in which individuals who are assigned biologically male are not present, and it is thus reasonable to infer that defendants’ failure to inform plaintiff of the unwritten policy affected her decision to join the gym"