Anne Sinnott vindicated - she was right!

and doesn't look womanly enough and he goes and thumps her, that's happened before."

Citation needed, Sarah. We can provide evidence that some transwomen are a hazard to natal women. What's your evidence that men are hitting butch lesbian or women with PCOS who try to use the loo? And, even if they are, this is the fault of the violent men, not the women who want to keep violent males out of the women's loos. It's one of TheBewilderness rules of patriarchy that "women are responsible for men's actions". We see your misogyny, Sarah.

SB is implying that men stand outside women's toilets and decided who is womanly enough to go in? Wtf?

1. Unlikely.
2. If they do, how is it our fault? Rules of misogyny again.
3. If anyone male can get a GRC and hence get carte blanche to enter women's loos and changing rooms, I foresee fathers taking violent action against anyone male following their DDs into the loo/changing room because they will no longer trust the GRC process to screen out insincere applicants. This will increase the risk of male violence for current GRC holders like Sarah Brown (it's public knowledge from Ms Brown, MNHQ).

*"You might get someone, especially after a few beers or something, saying a woman who, maybe she's got short hair or is a butch lesbian or has Polycystic ovary syndrome and doesn't look womanly enough and he goes and thumps her, that's happened before."

SB is implying that men stand outside women's toilets and decided who is womanly enough to go in? Wtf?

Also thank you Ann

Really interesting video by Ann and Venice. I didn't realise that about gender reassignment. That's been really hijacked.

July 2018 James Kirkup Twitter thread on Government assertion that single sex exemptions Equalities Act 2010 would not be affected:

"Some facts about the events that preceded the Government statement here that the coming consultation on the Gender Recognition Act will be narrowly drawn and not affect the Equality Act’s single sex exemptions.

I offer these facts because some are claiming “there was never any question of removing/amending EA exceptions.” Those claims are either mistaken or dishonest.
August 2015
Stonewall submission to the Women & Equalities Select Committee says MPs should amend the EA to
“remove exemptions, such as access to single-sex spaces”
Jan 2016
Women & Equalities Committee says EA should be amended so that

“occupational requirements provision and / or the single-sex / separate services provision shall not apply”.

July 2016
Govt response to W&E Committee says: “we agree with the principle of this recommendation” on EA exemptions and seeks evidence for “future policy discussions”

July 2017
Govt promises GRA reform “ as part of a broad consultation of the legal system that underpins gender transition.”

July 2017
Stonewall commits to “advocate for the removal” of EA provisions allowing sex-based discrimination.

June 2018
Govt says:

“We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces.”
In sum: MPs and others told govt to amend/remove Equality Act single-sex exemptions. Govt considered doing so. Then govt ruled it out. / ends"

includes link to sources:
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1004635839480164352.html?refreshed=yes

Can I say how grateful I am that Anna Smith's letter states an explicit agenda to update the out-of-date 2010 EA?

You know, the one that people keep telling us won't change so womenmaking a mountain of of a molehill with the proposed changes to GRA?

Bizarrely, former cllr Sarah Brown seems to be under the delusion that a local unlawful policy should trump national legislation!

One presumes this is due to the success that Sarah Brown and others have had in asserting this thus far?

Well done twofalls!

FatherBuzzCagney Where did you see that Statement from Anna Smith on Cambridge Council's equality policy?

Well done Ann and thank you so much

@AnnMSinnott well done. I am going out this weekend with a local group and am taking postcards and flyers everywhere I go. Thank you for standing up for women.

Layla Moran is my MP. There was a lengthy discussion about this. Thought you might be interested, scroll down to 12th August.

www.facebook.com/LaylaMoranUK/

So there are people so stupid that they think the public can’t tell the difference between a woman with short hair and trousers (me today) and a man ? Women have been persuaded to believe that if they aren’t feminine enough they will get beaten up?

And these same people have the brazen nerve to accuse us of scaremongering when we ask questions about safeguarding in the wake of Jess "flasher" Bradley and Karen White. They are the scaremongers, not us.

If men are beating up lesbians, it's not because of what loo they are using, it's because they are lesbians.

Nolan Principles of Public Life cover local government:

www.leadinggovernance.com/blog/nolan-principles-20-years

So there are people so stupid that they think the public can’t tell the difference between a woman with short hair and trousers (me today) and a man ? Women have been persuaded to believe that if they aren’t feminine enough they will get beaten up ? This is insane.

single-sex changing rooms and toilets, has always, rightly, been inclusive to trans people, on a self identification basis.

I don't recall that being the case when they ran women-only screened swimming so that muslim and jewish women could swim at Parkside pool. This is going back 15-20 years. Of course, they don't offer that now. Since when has less than one percent of the population had the right to freeze out religious women and rape survivors?

Yes, Anna Smith is pro-trans, as is Cllr Richard Johnson. Others are not and some are wobbly.

Anna Smith has produced this because of Sarah Brown's stunt outside Lions Yard toilets last Saturday and subsequent positive press coverage - biased, though I'm mentioned I wasn't approached and given right to reply. The Labour-led council is frantically trying to contain trans/LibDem reaction - who, of course, are making hay. Bizarrely, former cllr Sarah Brown seems to be under the delusion that a local unlawful policy should trump national legislation!

On a personal level, I am, and remain, a committed trans ally. I am hugely aware of the desperate need for us to update both the gender recognition act and the equality act. As a supporter of self-ID, I have completed my submission to the GRA consultation, arguing that the current unworkable and unjust processes should be amended.

^^ I don't understand how this is permissible under Nolan.

Thank you Ann

Is this their recruitment and scaremongering tool? “If you have short hair and jeans on or if you arent pretty - you’re going to get targetted for being s man”

TRAs rely upon inducing internalised misogyny in women to convert them into allies, just as MRAs do. The set of TRA tactics and the set of MRA tactics are the same set.

We see your misogyny, Zoe and Sarah.

Unfortunate update from Cambridge. Apparently, the Cambridge Exec Councillor for Communities is a 'committed trans ally'. If only she were as committed to women's rights and safety. But I guess she doesn't think there are as many votes in that.

Clarification on the update to Cambridge’s Single Equalities Policy
1st October, 2018

Dear friends,

I am writing to you in response to your article about Cambridge City Council’s amendments to its inclusion policy. I wanted to clarify a few points.

Cambridge City Council is, and remains, a council strongly committed to inclusion. Our Single Equalities Policy update, which is available on our website, outlines the many things we do to promote equality, including trans equality. For instance, we are currently piloting the Encompass Network’s LGBTQ+ Safe Spaces Campaign and are proud to do so.

Over the summer, queries were raised about the legality of some aspects of the council’s equality policy. Officers immediately began investigating, and this included taking the advice of independent legal experts. The advice we received was that, in order to comply with the 2010 legislation, we needed to make some clarifications. That is what officers are recommending in their draft proposals, which are being brought to committee for discussion. The advice we have received is that the changes are necessary in order to ensure our policy is legally compliant.

Our legal advice makes it clear that we cannot fetter our discretion by not mentioning the single sex exemption. However, it was equally clear that the exemption is to be applied on an exceptional, case-by-case basis only. Our single-sex provision, including a huge number of events for women, as well as single-sex changing rooms and toilets, has always, rightly, been inclusive to trans people, on a self identification basis. It will remain inclusive. It is distressing and disappointing that the opposition councillors in Cambridge are seeking to politicise this important issue which I believe should be beyond party politics.

On a personal level, I am, and remain, a committed trans ally. I am hugely aware of the desperate need for us to update both the gender recognition act and the equality act. As a supporter of self-ID, I have completed my submission to the GRA consultation, arguing that the current unworkable and unjust processes should be amended.

I hope that I can reassure you of Cambridge Council’s continued commitment to inclusion, as well as my own personal commitment. I am very happy for you to contact me further if you would like any clarification.

With best wishes,
Anna Smith
Executive Councillor for Communities,
Cambridge City Council

Back here sooner than I thought!

Thanks again for all kind words and comments - warms my heart.

Yes, this was a landmark victory. but let's not lay back and enjoy.

If Sex Self-ID goes through, the protective lid will be blown off completely! The very definition of 'woman' will change and all other language - chest-feeding, cervix-havers, breeders, menstruating people - there will be NO single-sex spaces, services, facilities. And that includes domestic violence refuges, as well as all the other important stuff: toilets, sports, community facilities, awards and prizes, etc etc Everything will be mixed-sex and that will greatly disadvantage women and put them at risk.

Take part in the consultation and encourage others to do the same

fairplayforwomen.com/how-to/ fairplayforwomen.com/cake/

womansplaceuk.org/wpuk-guidance-on-gra-consultation/

If you can, also join in the FPFW campaign - we're out on the streets talking to and informing the general public who are by and large shocked and alarmed. If there isn't an FPFW hub near you, or you don't want to work publicly, get hold of materials from the website and distribute wherever you can think of: in toilets, public or in cafes, shops, galleries, community centres etc, cafe tables, bookstands in bookshops, etc.

We have just two more weeks to stop this! Please help!

Hah, by the Stonewall definition, I'm trans. (I don't consider myself to be).

the single-sex exemption should be opt out not, as it is at present, opt in - and the opting out should only be exceptional

Yes, yes, yes!

I was shock about that - that poor woman sad

Glad it wasn’t just me who was shocked and upset by that.

What next? As a woman who wears a shit ton of make up, should I avoid public toilets in case I get mistaken for Ru Paul?

This is all just about policing woman’s appearance, same old, same old.

It also insults the intelligence of every Dad in the country to suggest that while waiting outside woman’s toilets for their daughters they’d be unable to differentiate between a man and a woman going in after them.

In fact that article insulted the entire population.

You usually can tell if someone is trans. Im sure not always, but generally. Especially transwomen. I think it would be pretty shit evolutionarywise if we couldnt tell a male from a female easily

Yes, who exactly is going to beat up these ugly women or women with short hair using female loos? I say this as a late teen who was often mistaken for a boy.