If this thread was started today it would have very different responses

If sex is a protected characteristic, but anyone can be any sex, how does that work?

The lawyer on womens hour yesterday said something like this, dont worry your pretty wee heads about this, sex is a protected characteristic. And I was screaming at the radio for someone to pull her on the fact that if anyone can declare themselves female its not bloody protected is it!!

But womens hour were worse than useless conducting that debate.

Why do charities support single sex facilities in the 3rd world, asylum refuges etc. Because women are at risk from men. This fact doesn't change because it's the UK, or is it just the non Brits who are a risk to women? Because that seems pretty racist to me.

The problem is that the more you look at the question - shouldn't people be able to use toilets based on the gender identity? - the more you realise that the premise of the question isn't more tolerance, but more sexism.

It would be perfectly fair to have a debate about when unisex facilities are necessary and when and why there are provisions in the Equalities Act that allow single sex spaces.

However, that discussion is being silenced. Instead we should apparently be segregated according to 'identity' and nobody can explain why.

It's not even a hundred years since women could vote on equal terms with men in the UK (less than 50 if you are Swiss). Women can't protect their rights if they can't explain who they are.

If sex is a protected characteristic, but anyone can be any sex, how does that work?

I’d love to hear the answer to that one

Single-sex space is protected by the Equality Act (2010) and reform of the GRA does not affect any of the provisions of the Equality Act.

Yes, we have been told this a lot.

Except that if anyone can simply 'self identify' as a woman and become legally a woman and therefore have access to that protected single sex space, then the above is not actually true is it?

Just to clarify that reform of the GRA will make no change to use of single-sex spaces. Single-sex space is protected by the Equality Act (2010) and reform of the GRA does not affect any of the provisions of the Equality Act. As far as entitlement to use of single-sex space is concerned, nothing will change from how it is today.

Well that's not quite true, is it. As has been mentioned on this thread and discussed at considerable length on other threads already.

Stop lying to women that we already have, and will continue to have, all the protections that we need.

However, as long as the Self ID doesn’t, I don’t see a problem with those with a GRC using the facilities.

How do you know who has a GRC? When a transwoman walks into the toilet, how do you know if they have one? You can't ask.

Shon Faye and their ilk have taken great pleasure in telling women that 'transwomen who don't have a GRC have been using the female facilities for years because you don't ask for a GRC at the door'. Apparently not giving a fuck how women feel about that.

Single-sex space is protected by the Equality Act (2010) and reform of the GRA does not affect any of the provisions of the Equality Act.

Perhaps you can explain this, in that case.

If sex is a protected characteristic, but anyone can be any sex, how does that work?

A GRC will not erase all risk of male violance, however it will minimise it. We can not erase all risk of violence to women. As a class group that was once (and still is in many ways) repressed, I don’t think repressing another to ensure absolute certainty of protection is the way to go.

^^this is gaslighting. Using untruths, to subvert the real situation and make the women doubt themselves.

If you say a GRC minimises violence, you'll have to explain how. I've just given you an example of a murdering rapist whose gender dysphoria was blamed for their crimes.

Also pretending that women have any power to a oppress men is risible. More gaslighting. Transwomen are men. Women cannot oppress swathes of men.

Pretending that excluding men from accessing women on intimate spaces is oppression, is disgraceful.

Op - a few years ago I probably shared your view.

That was until I saw women being threatened and debate being shut down and people being unable to speak truths.

I really don't like some of the language on this board, especially the term handmaidens, but I respect the women who are putting their career and personal safety on the line to discuss this issue.

As a class group that was once (and still is in many ways) repressed, I don’t think repressing another to ensure absolute certainty of protection is the way to go. If you think women not wanting blokes in women's private spaces is oppression I'm not sure you'll find a lot of agreement here. It's as if you see the gc pov but feel constrained by your desire to be nice. Free yourself. :)

As for ensuring 'absolute certainty of protection' well that's just pie in the sky, we know we enjoy no real protection in private or public spaces. If we felt protected from male violence, or even if we knew it would be punished, we might feel more generous.

Op, I understand you say you've come here to discuss this issue, determine when opinions changed and 'for education, to get involved' but with respect you seem defensive. I'm not sure if you want to change minds or want your mind changed or what you want really. I think you'd be happier with the response if this was in AIBU, but if you're here because you want the gc pov I think you're getting it.

This whole thread illustrates so beautifully why the idea that a man can legally become a woman is so ludicrous.

Yes, I'm off to reread some Bunbury, but before I go, I'll point out to those reading Halka's claim that the Equality Act will continue to ensure protection of single sex spaces, that Self ID will enshrine in law that sex is self defined, therefore the Equality Act will mean bugger all.

AAK, I could so need it. See, I have read it all, I understand it, but I still have not managed to internalize Bunbury's philosophy to the point where I can fully live by its rules.

As far as entitlement to use of single-sex space is concerned, nothing will change from how it is today.

Indeed, just as NHS wards, by policy, haven't been single sex for years. It was just slipped through under everybody's radar, accompanied by a deliberately misleading government statement on it (there is a thread on here about it). And just like the Karen Whites of this world get access to vulnerable women and children in prison now already....
And this precisely why many MNers believe that abstaining from further GRA-changes does not go far enough, but want to go further.
It is a very logical stance, when you think it through.

I've always been fond of Bunbury's foundational text "If you're in need of tutoring my rate is 30 pounds an hour".

😂😂

I've always been fond of Bunbury's foundational text "If you're in need of tutoring my rate is 30 pounds an hour".

Just to clarify that reform of the GRA will make no change to use of single-sex spaces. Single-sex space is protected by the Equality Act (2010) and reform of the GRA does not affect any of the provisions of the Equality Act. As far as entitlement to use of single-sex space is concerned, nothing will change from how it is today.

Yes, I think Bunbury has assessed this again and again, really. I'm not entirely convinced by the repeated insistence that the OP is 'against self ID' either, tbh. I'm fairly sure that said OP has already been in FWR threads making the AWA case before now, so this really does look like a bit of a bait and switch, and "Please educate me, I just don't understand" is coming across as a bit of an attempt to elicit emotional labour from the women here.

IMO.

Could you clarify if you support sex segregation?

AAK, you have raised an excellent point.

I don’t think repressing another to ensure absolute certainty of protection is the way to go

Transwomen are not oppressed because we won’t let them in women’s spaces. That is a preposterous suggestion. They are sex separated spaces. Failure to validate a belief someone else holds, that humans can change sex, is not a form of oppression. To compare it to the historical oppression of women, the commodification of our bodies throughout history, is really insulting.

What is the percentage of woman abused by (holding a GRC) in women spaces as opposed to women being abused by women in women’s spaces?

See, sensible safeguarding would collect data and evaluate on that, but there are no data because all statistics treat transwomen with a GRC s women.
Scientific data strongly indicate transwomen, even with SRS, show male pattern violence. So I really cannot see your point, unless if you oppose any segregation by sex or gender.

I was typing away when you made your interesting point there AAK. Might go off and do some reading instead now.

Some people pose a risk to me, some people don’t. When I am in a situation where I have to assess how at risk I am from a stranger my thought process goes like this

• are they male?
• are they drunk?
• are we alone?
• can I escape?

Does this stranger male have a GRC is not a factor because it does not reduce risk.