What right to a single sex space do I have and how?

Utter nonsense. It's called discussion. Have I ever objected to anyones right to hold such a belief?

Glad to hear it but putting that aside how would you resolve the problem of maintaining spaces solely for females if some people of the opposite sex were to be allowed to use them?

For most people, it hasn't really been on their radar, but now that is changing.

You're constantly trying to get women to agree that they must make an exception for the certain cohort to which you belong!

No I'm not. I'm expressing a view from the point of view if a transsexual. Show me a single post where I have said "you gave to..." and made demands. I have not done so.

The law is a mess. UK government is keeping its head in the sand because of this. And there's been a lot of misrepresentation over the years by trans lobby groups.
As I understand it, what's been missing is court cases to establish how these conflicts play out. There are legal eagles watching and waiting for ways to test the law.

As we've seen in the case of the female prisoner, the prison service claimed they don't keep a record of males with a GRC and the judge asked them to go away and sort something out about this. So it will be interesting to see if they come back with some actual figures.

Unfortunately I think we will have to wait on various cases to either clarify and enforce the law or highlight deficiencies and gaps in the legislation and then build public support to pressure parliament to do something about it.

Given it has the opposite affect, I would say it was counter-productive.

Not believing in gender identity is now legally protected. And you still want to force compelled speech on the back of that.

Utter nonsense. It's called discussion. Have I ever objected to anyones right to hold such a belief?

I totally get that the law was intended to permit a very small number, c.5000, transsexuals to use opposite sex facilities, & that that has been exploited by all manner of other people.

However, on a de facto basis, there's no way to distinguish admission rights between a transsexual like PP &, well, any random male asserting that they are a woman.

GRC doesn't help - you can't ask to see it.

Surgery doesn't help - you certainly can't ask for proof of that!

Standard ID such as passport, driving licence? No use - you can get the sex marker changed on request.

So no one operating a 'single sex but that means legal sex' service would have any basis to let in Blue, but refuse the random male claiming to identify as a woman who turns up 5 minutes later, as far as I can see.

We are just left with single sex exemptions, which can be used to exclude any male, regardless of GRC or surgery.

& these days, frankly, a lot of women's line is 'single sex by biology, no exceptions'. Which i think should be honoured tbh, however much it inconveniences the 5000 GRC holders.

So you aren't saying transsexuals should be excluded just that post op transsexuals should use male spaces ? We clearly have a different definition of "excluded".

I think you have this the wrong way round, male people are always excluded from female single sex spaces, what you are saying is that a special exception should be made for some people who are male. You are asking to be included into an area where you would not normally be allowed.

'Case by case basis' is for the type of service, not the individual trying to access the service.

You want them to call certain males by different names, because you have a different belief to them.

Not believing in gender identity is now legally protected. And you still want to force compelled speech on the back of that.

This is why there will always be a conflict, and this is why women are saying no.

Does it not occur to you, that your determination to make women agree with you directly contributes to the reasons why they want their own spaces?

BlueLipstickRocks How would you like it to be administered so that a post op transsexual such as yourself could use the ladies facilities but the perv who just wants to look at women's bodies can't?

No one is suggesting that transsexuals should be excluded. They are saying that they need to use the facilities assigned to their biological sexual, regardless of how they identify.

So you aren't saying transsexuals should be excluded just that post op transsexuals should use male spaces ? We clearly have a different definition of "excluded".

And transsexualism is not an identity. Nor do I identify as being post op.

biological sex

Or a third unisex space if one is available.

To do otherwise is to discriminate against women.

It’s quite simple I’m surprised you don’t understand what posters are explaining to you.

But that is not the case. Males with a GRC can be excluded from females spaces and facilities/inheritances (and vice versa) as laid out in tbe Equality Act and the GRA itself.

Only in very specific circumstances and certainly not as a rule. Vast majority of the time then no, a transsexual cannot be excluded. The exemptions do not include toilets and changing rooms.

Can I ask you please to refrain from using the phrase "males with a GRC". Thank you.

To your original point OP.. as far as I can see the current law in place is actually fair and reasonable, with appropriate provisions. The problem is that the service providers, from an M&S changing room to a prison or hospital have totally ignored any of the legal exclusions in the legislation in the face of Stonewall’s lobbying and incorrect advice and in fear of being accused of transphobic. All safeguarding has gone out of the window.

I think the only option is to keep bringing the issues out into the open, because if more reasonable discussion is had on these matters the more organisations will feel confident to make use of legitimate sex based exemptions. The problem is that no private organisation wants to be seen as transphobic, and it seems this characteristic has trumped all others. Eg if the potential presence of males in a changing room is preventing women of some religions using the service, well that’s just hard luck for the religious woman. There doesn’t seem to be an appetite to solve that problem. Or is it simply because trans rights activists demand the attention, the religious woman just stops using the service with no explanation?

And the exclusion of transsexuals discriminates against transsexuals. This is what the law says.

Excluding transwomen from male toilets is discriminatory and is what the law says.

I think we had this discussion the other day on an entire 1000 post thread, let's not derail the OP's request for help.

The govt, even Liz Truss at this point, are not facing up to the basic conflict they have set up, and as pp says, the right of women to have single sex spaces, and the right of a transsexual or transgender person to use the space of their choice cannot co exist. However increasingly support seems to be being given that service providers can and should use the exceptions within the Equality Act.

We know those service providers have been subject to a great deal of political pressure and negative behaviour to try and make it sound illegal and wrong to allow women the right to any single sex space, and those spaces have been treated as targets by their mere existence even when there were plenty of mixed sex alternatives fully available. What will need to happen now is for groups to use those exceptions and for the govt and LAs to support them in standing up to the behaviour and pressure from a political lobby that does not want any single sex services to exist.

And by extension wish to discriminate against women who are excluded from any space which is not single sex in a biological, natal way, and leave them without provision. Which is why women need to be able to define themselves in a sex class based way.

There is a thread somewhere in the past year by a woman who wanted to set up a single sex lesbian group, and did so against pressure and requests that it should be mixed sex (mixed sex lesbian groups existed.) I believe she did manage it, and it included being specific about why her users required access to a single sex group, and being ready and able to signpost those not of that sex class but who wanted this provision to other groups available to them.

As Blue says, the law as it stands regarding a GRC was intended to protect transexuals. Rightly or wrongly it is the law and she is entitled to use the facilities in line with her legal sex rather than her biological sex. Would this not be 'the line' ? It is for me, as long as self id to get a GRC is not brought in it (which is off the table) and it maintains the existing social boundaries.

And the exclusion of transsexuals discriminates against transsexuals. This is what the law says.

The law allows discrimination for the purpose of single sex spaces. This is why the exceptions in the EA exist.

No male, with or without a GRC, has been in a female only space. No law could enable this either. By entering such a space it immediately becomes mixed sex; whilst they are there they have removed single sex provision from all women using or wishing to use a singke sex space.

True. But in most traditionally single sex spaces the inclusion of men discriminates against women.

And the exclusion of transsexuals discriminates against transsexuals. This is what the law says.

^case by case basis

This means on a provider basis, not an individual basis.

°Saying it is not illegal to exclude transwomen with a GRC is not the same as saying a provider has to exclude transwomen with a GRC^

True. But in most traditionally single sex spaces the inclusion of men discriminates against women.

"It is not illegal to exclude males with a GRC from exclusively female spaces where those spaces are required for the privacy, safety and dignity of women. That was agreed at Ann Sinnot's recent application for judicial review."

Yes, but I thought that the successful argument advanced by the respondent was that any exceptions (e.g. excluding transwomen with GRCs) had to be done on a case by case basis, not as a blanket rule. Saying it is not illegal to exclude transwomen with a GRC is not the same as saying a provider has to exclude transwomen with a GRC.

So I think I agree with the OP's position on this, but would be useful to hear the Legal Feminist view.