'There are no sex-based rights'

If I remember correctly ours were even called ‘Affirmative Action for Women’. Back in 1986.

I laugh whenever I see the narrative pushed that it is a ‘made up term’. It really was well used in the 90s at my two universities and employers. But then again, we weren’t in the special Human Rights departments and we were not having discussions about legitimacy of whether something was accurately fitting under what section of Human Rights so that all other usable labels would be considered false. We were talking to employers and employees directly, every day.

Because they included ‘affirmative action’ sections in the employment legislation for women based on laws to eliminate sex discrimination.

The EA 2010 has similar for "positive action" to further the needs of any of the nine protected characteristics.

I use it naturally here as I have come from another country where I worked on the trade union side. And during uni and employment after, we called them women’s sex based rights. Because they included ‘affirmative action’ sections in the employment legislation for women based on laws to eliminate sex discrimination. And grouped in maternity rights.

You may parse the use of the term however you wish from your legal perspective. Your bias from your posts are clear. But if you are going by state that there are no ‘sex based rights’, then yes you must also apply that to ‘trans rights’ for balance.

@SamphiretheStickerist I am also beyond being nice and expending endless energy in justifying my position. At the end of the day, the no is all that matters anyway. There is no amount of moderation, tact, reason, sensitivity that makes the no acceptable to these people. Your experiences will never be enough, your politeness will never be enough. Women far more educated and erudite than me have patiently and repeatedly laid out our argument over and over again. The whole process is a narcissistic mind game designed to exhaust you and wear you down performing endless labour, perhaps even disclosing trauma and abuse, and I’m not playing anymore. They aren’t interested in your ‘lived experience’ - if your closing answer is still no that’s the part they don’t want to hear. It’s all they hear. So now, I’m just saying no. It’s powerful.

It only became a universal right with this Act, when all women finally got the vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepresentationoffthePeoplee(EqualFranchise))Act1928

The Act added five million more women to the electoral roll and had the effect of making women a majority, 52.7%, of the electorate in the 1929 general electionn^,[4] which was termed the "Flapperr^ Election".[5]

As a result of the Act, the male electorate was extended by 5.2 million[2] to 12.9 million.[5] The female electorate was 8.5 million.

Plus, voting wasn't actually a sex based right, it was a status based right. Not all men could vote and some got the right to vote only when the first women got the right to vote. So this framing isn't accurate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepresentationoffthePeopleeAct_1918

we learned that ascribing rights and responsibilities purely because of someone's sexual parts harmed women

We corrected sexism in the voting system and removed discrimination.

Then the law looked at equity not just 'equality', and acknowledged that some groups were disadvantaged for various reasons. These disadvantages are described in the Equality Act. The 9 protected characteristics, which include 'sex'. As I'm sure you know. Sex is a protected characteristic. That's what we're talking about when we talk about a 'sex based right':

Mumsnet Campaign

Worth reading the posts, interesting discussion

Following a poll of 8000 of you, we wrote to the Government urging it to retain telemedical abortion www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_campaigns/4482095-Following-a-poll-of-8000-of-you-we-wrote-to-the-Government-urging-it-to-retain-telemedical-abortion

By which I mean, is there legislation, research, or any form of evidence that spells out exactly why sex-based rights are harmful?

www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-56580861

Wales, can't find anything on England.

There's definitely no gender based rights.

I didn't read it, because it looked like one of eleventy million TRA gish gallop blogs from the description and I've come across Gellman before.

Oh, Eresh, Eresh, Eresh. You haven't got it yet, have you?

Fortunately, Rebecca explains it all for you. You just have to wade through reams of illogic to find it. The bit where Rebecca manages to mangle all understanding of the EA2010 is straight out of the RMW Handbook!

The service provider is not under any obligation to please you, and in fact will be violating the law if they exclude a trans woman on your say so

No. The exemptions to the EA for female only spaces already exist.

The service provider is not under any obligation to please you, and in fact will be violating the law if they exclude a trans woman on your say so. If you cannot stand the idea that a trans woman may be in there, then you options are: 1) suck it up, 2) leave.

Isn't leaving seen as a transphobic microagression (as stated by the University of Edinburgh)? So there is no choice. Stay and validate despite feeling fear or being uncomfortable or be labeled a transphobe. Anti woman campaigners just seem to ignore the allowed exemptions in the Equality Act while insisting that there are trans rights which are not being met somehow. We've seen it on this thread - there are apparently no 'sex based rights' but there are, of course, trans rights.

What a surprise. The term “sex-based rights” was coined right around the same time it became obvious that there was a massive move to remove them and replace them with “gender-identity based rights”.

Precisely.

can't get my head around a woman, one apparently versed in law, is spouting some of the same inherently flawed logic.

Yes, it's very odd, isn't it?

Good grief. That reminds me so very strongly of a transwoman, Rebecca Gellman... hold on...

rgellman.medium.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-sex-based-rights-in-the-uk-140554a2c42c

Gellman also had a stab at the Staniland Question, well, maybe not
The service provider is not under any obligation to please you, and in fact will be violating the law if they exclude a trans woman on your say so. If you cannot stand the idea that a trans woman may be in there, then you options are: 1) suck it up, 2) leave.

rgellman.medium.com/answering-the-staniland-question-c8c2a047e003

I can't get my head around a woman, one apparently versed in law, is spouting some of the same inherently flawed logic.

And the home abortion comment seems to be wrong too, doesn't it? There was an issue during lockdowns, but the 2-stage home abortion is available via the NHS. Process changed because of Covid and depsite lobbying to have it removed again.

Or did I misunderstand something in that uber edumacational word salad!

What I do see, though, is the likes of Boris Johnson restricting women's access to at home abortions in England and Wales

What is this referring to?

This Schrodinger's X thing is one of my pet hates - I think of it as neoliberal, but maybe that's wrong.

Being simultaneously two different things depending on for what purpose.

Like companies simultaneously regarding those working for them as either staff or self-employed contractors depending on which law/tax clause they're considering.

Or Internet companies simultaneously saying they're publishers and common carriers depending on what suits for any purpose.

Transparent arbitrary self-serving justifications all the way down. This is totally that. Come back to us when you concede "trans rights" don't exist and would cause harm.

What are "trans rights" then?

If AScottishMum could answer this question that'd be grand.

All this rambling on about human rights law (which were are clearly too stupid and uneducated to comprehend) and it all boils down to a "but Tories are evil so shut up you silly women".