Women & Equalities Commitee live today at 2.30

Transcript of the session here

committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1693/default/

Do you know if anyone has done some sort of summary of this and other sessions?

Just dont have time to read everything, but would like to know not only what has been said but responses / reactions to them.

Thanks

My question to Robin is, why can’t they use the facilities tax payer money has already provided for them, based on their sex? Why are women & girls not allowed single sex provision when current legislation has identified a clear need for single sex toilets to protect women & girls. I think Robin is a bit of an own goal....

Robin seems to be forgetting what stopped Robin using the womens toilets prior to transition. Why didn't they use those toilets prior to transition? Do those social rules still count even though Robin now has longer hair and wears a dress? And if not why? Does the rest of the people in the toilets not have a say on where Robin should pee?
We do not operate ina bubble. Our actions have implecations on the people around us.
One of the panellists pointed out that the law has done the heavylifting already on this topic, but it's been muddied by sex/gender conflation in law, badly written law and Stonewall training across every institution under the sun.

Women know how vital boundaries are (most of us learned this varying degrees of the hard way) and want our daughters and all girls to grow up to have strong ones.

One example is that we tell girls that it's not OK for a male to be in the women's toilets and that they should tell someone if this happens. Robin wants us to tell girls 'yes, males shouldn't be in the girls toilets, except for some males who are special'.
I'm taken aback by the sheer brass neck of asking us to do this tbh.

What is a nine-year-old girl, a third of the size of an adult male, supposed to make of that? What if there is a male, but she doesn't know if it's a special one and doesn't want to get in trouble by reporting?

She may think she is at fault for not being able to tell the difference and resolve in future just to let any males go where they like and do what they want unchallenged.

This is why I will never tell girls there are males who are exceptions.

This. Me neither.

But she doesn’t think it’s a legitimate aim to “exclude trans people” & just a moral panic

i'm seeing this " moral panic" line cropping up more and more. I suspect it vis a way to try to align concerned voices with some imaginary 'right wing backlash'.

I watched this on and off and saw Robin's comments about using the ladies loos at the supermarket. Robin's sex is apparent. It really hit me just how selfish this is - selfishness on a colossal scale.
What Robin wants us to do is to groom our girls to have weaker boundaries.
Women know how vital boundaries are (most of us learned this varying degrees of the hard way) and want our daughters and all girls to grow up to have strong ones.
One example is that we tell girls that it's not OK for a male to be in the women's toilets and that they should tell someone if this happens. Robin wants us to tell girls 'yes, males shouldn't be in the girls toilets, except for some males who are special'.
I'm taken aback by the sheer brass neck of asking us to do this tbh.
What is a nine-year-old girl, a third of the size of an adult male, supposed to make of that? What if there is a male, but she doesn't know if it's a special one and doesn't want to get in trouble by reporting? She may think she is at fault for not being able to tell the difference and resolve in future just to let any males go where they like and do what they want unchallenged.
This is why I will never tell girls there are males who are exceptions.
No doubt Robin really, really really wants access to the women's toilets. But in many other contexts, we might really, really, really want something but learn that the cost is damage to someone else and realise that we will have to live without it.
In this case, the cost is curtailment of the lives of girls and women, with women as unwilling accomplices. The cost is a generation of girls growing up without the boundaries they need.
But Robin still wants it and considers that cost worth it. That's what I mean by colossal selfishness.

Thanks OvaHere, that last one is really excellent (tho pretty depressing) -

He’s talking about gay men in Northern Ireland now. It is fascinating to me that people who recognise the needs for protection of other groups within the equality act on the basis of sexuality dont see the problems with erasing sex entire.

She says we can carve out the nuance that someone providing services can offer services with a same sex space without it discriminating if it’s proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.
But she doesn’t think it’s a legitimate aim to “exclude trans people” & just a moral panic.

So this is how the more measured voices will tackle our terrible belief in male violence and need for female protection. They will say yes, you have the right,if it’s reasonable but it isn’t

Apparently at the same time this meeting was happening there was another going on nearby called Queering the Equality Act

twitter.com/hatpinwoman/status/1359524987288367107

Another thread from Maya

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1359512083373637632

Thread from Maya

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1359580204746887171

Thanks Ova. Bookmarking.

Good to hear Karon Monaghan finally put to bed the myth that having a GRC is necessary for trans people to benefit from Equality Act protections.

Indeed - we all applaud that - I have never seen it written on these boards that a GRC is needed. Glad you recognise, unlike many who pretend otherwise, that transpeople have rights.

It’s just that males - however they identify - don’t have women’s rights.

I think what was made very clear is that the heavy lifting has already been done, in terms of government recognising in certain situations women & girls need single sex provision....so by offering mixed sex AND single sex, everyone is catered for. JJ Yr missing the point that women also benefit from EA protections on the basis of their sex. Gender reassignment is a totally different protected characteristic.

Good to hear Karon Monaghan finally put to bed the myth that having a GRC is necessary for trans people to benefit from Equality Act protections. Interesting as well that not one of the panelists seemed to think the legal comparator would be a man in the case of a trans women claiming discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. Hopefully those pushing these false interpretations of the law will take heed, because bad legal advice doesn't help anyone, least of all providers of single sex services.

I expect we may receive a visit soon.

It was also interesting to hear Robin White talk in person. I believe they have been known to frequent these boards occasionally.

I missed a fair bit of the beginning of the session but what it clear is the GRA and the EA2010 and how they interact is a mess. Clarification and guidance it needed to help people apply the laws in practise.

It was good to see the finger pointed at Stonewall for deliberately misconstruing the law and making organisations think they’re going to get sued if they don’t allow male people into women’s spaces.

lots of good input re. single sex spaces and the protection of those.

Also clarification of the exceptions where discrimination is allowed from Naomi (I wasn't impressed with Karon's assertion that the exceptions are very rare and rarely used, a complete lie but she later backtracked a bit).

I didn't understand the Scottish lady's question where she started talking about (I think) the EA 2010 and then went straight into something about transphobia - Naomi didn't understand her either and it was very garbled.

It was interesting to see the point about self-id being viewed as less of an issue in the fact that it doesn't make much difference to the single sex exceptions and that the priority should be to improve the clarity of the EA 2010 enormously and exceptions enforced (so there would be no negative impact on women's single sex spaces because exclusions would apply regardless of GRC) but ultimately I don't agree that on that basis self-id isn't an issue because:

a) I don't believe they will strengthen the guidance and fix all the policies all of the captured organisations who will just assume that a GRC means guaranteed access and

b) it is likely to be used as a gateway ie. the GRC doesn't do much now so it is fine for more people to be able to get one on a self-id basis but then 2 years down the line they will be pushing for better treatment for GRC holders - more access to single sex spaces etc.

(like the supermarkets do - they get planning for their store on the basis that the hours of operation and deliveries will be limited so as not to disturb in a residential area, then the store gets built, then they apply to extend the hours of operation because it is essential for the business - an incremental effect which means they get what they want eventually)

Basically single sex spaces are a figment of our imagination, as if a male wishes to use them, and is wearing a dress & considering gender reassignment, then that is not unreasonable

Robin would say it was unreasonable because it's something that Robin wants to take from women without their consent. Women saying no is always unreasonable when it gets in the way of male wants.

This is fascinating-a picture tells a thousand words.

What stood out to me, was that men can benefit from earlier pensions when they transition. Women however do not benefit from inheritance rights available to males.

Regarding maternity leave-again, males who transition can benefit from maternity leave (even though this is meant to be of benefit to the WOMAN who gave birth.) A woman who transitions may have to make do with paternity leave....(the law is very unclear in this area.)

The issue of living in the acquired gender for 2 years is unworkable-as how does one define 'living as a woman.' Also its not fair to young people who might not have ID in their new name....

It is not illegal to disclose that someone is a transexual, unless you find out that information in a professional capacity (ie in HR or if yr a DR.)

There is no real benefit to having a GRC as trans people protected under the characteristic 'gender reassignment.'

Basically single sex spaces are a figment of our imagination, as if a male wishes to use them, and is wearing a dress & considering gender reassignment, then that is not unreasonable (according to Robin who sounds like a male and many people would read as male.)

We are in trouble here, I'm not sure how we navigate a path out of this mess