'There are no sex-based rights'

And this is exactly why the fuckwittery that is going on with language needs to be nailed down.
If we can't define a woman as an adult human female (and we all know what that means) in LAW then this shitshow will go on and on.
If we have no definition then we have no rights of our own, as anyone can become a woman.

The rest would follow naturally if the meaning of the word woman was protected and defined.

Can I walk into a nursery and declare that I'm now 3 years old? Why not? Why do we tryst the evidence of our eyes in that situation but not in this one?

As for the man who declared himself a wrongly identified woman at birth - this is what happens when these illnesses are allowed to flourish and are actually encouraged by the medical establishment.

And as for those chanting that there are no sex based rights - carry on. It shows you up for the mysogynistic woman hating jealous bitter little brainwashed lemmings that you are, and turns a lot of otherwise neutral women onto what is happening here.

And while I'm sitting with my mouth open wondering what exactly was that person smoking, I'd like to know do they extend it to TW's right to dignity being debatable?

Or did they say the word 'women' meaning only 'adult human females'?

This is the escalating trans activist batshit overreach. It's extremist anti women stuff and centres creeps who are determined to override women and girl's boundaries.

Another one saying No.

women's right to dignity is 'a woolly concept'

Just when you think you've seen this political movement reached the zenith of misogyny, gynephobia and absolute determination to use female humans and destroy all boundaries in their way to do so...

they take it one step further.

Done with 'kind'. Done with 'dogwhistle'. Done with the whole damn mess of bullshit. No.

The gaslighting is not a bug, it's a feature. You could read a hundred blog posts like that.

The more experienced will proudly refer to “The Equality Act” and how it protects “single SEX spaces”, with the reader almost forced to hear the word “sex” shouted by an angry woman demanding to see the manager

Especially like this. Nice casual bit of sexism there.

The rest of it is amazing tbh. They go into quite a bit of detail about the history of single sex spaces, and then somehow conclude that the reason they exist in the first place is to discriminate against women, and it should be the work of feminists to dismantle them.

It's one of the most arse-about-face articles I've ever seen.

@TheGreatATuin I see this but I think the difference here is clarity. Changing the meaning of the word "woman" or "female" makes it harder to express our understanding of the world (which is why the orwellian analogy is used to often).

The term sex based rights (to me) is unclear because it could imply that we have more rights than men and like dinosaurs want to hoard them . The reality is of course that the law (in the UK) gives us a) some protection against being unfairly treated because of our sex and b) some protections that mitigate against our reduced rights and freedoms in society and the economy due to the fact that we are physically weaker, give birth and (most importantly) are treated by many as second class citizens

Now, we're being told that trans women are female too and saying 'female' is a dogwhistle.

Indeed! So much so that Adele is assumed to be anti-trans for simply using that word within a context you’d assume it would be entirely unremarkable, because the category that used that word had been removed.

I thought the exceptions under the EA had a very explicit example of where actual sex could proportionately override a GRA legal sex - rape services for women?

They do, but they will say because that isn't guaranteed you can't call it a "right".

I thought the exceptions under the EA had a very explicit example of where actual sex could proportionately override a GRA legal sex - rape services for women?
I thought there was also explicit allowance for female only sport?
And, of course, the inheritance of titles. Men for sure have sex-based rights in that case, don't they.

These things do exist, but it’s a very complex distinction to try and make on Twitter, and even more so when debating with people outside the UK.

Well, yes, in the dictionary, and to feminists, and to sociologists, and to philosophers, linguists - entirely depends on context

Of course common 'polite' usage has muddled it, as did the GRA a little bit (although not as much as they'd want you to believe), and of course those with such an agenda muddle it purpose as part of their word games.

Which is why I'm always very clear that I mean sex (even to Odeon when answering a recent survey about my visit to the cinema - male and female are not genders, it's fine to use the word 'sex')

I might be mistaken but it sounds very much like men of various types trying to erode the rights of all women in order to exponentially increase the rights of all men, but mostly shouty white privileged men...

Maybe so, but is there a clear definition making explicit the difference between 'sex' and 'gender'?

It's yet more word games - it's honestly all they have.

Redefining the word 'Woman' out from under us so now they say they're allowed in anything labelled for women, whilst simultaneously saying that there's nothing actually for women like menstrual products, as anyone can have periods.

It's just like my 8 year old loving asking me questions like "what's one plus one" and when I say 2, he say "no, a window", playing silly idiots with language to distract you and avoid having to actually think about the issue instead.

It's a necessary corollary of making legal sex falsifiable - you can't actually base things that are predicated on biological sex depend on it.

Well, this is the very crux of the issue with the EA/GRA clash, isn't it? Is there no mechanism for fixing when one law undermines another law?

The apartheid argument is easily dismissed unless they are arguing for the removal of sex-based segregation altogether. Mostly they are arguing for the preservation of apartheid, plus the right for a select few to choose which space they want to use, regardless of the needs of others.

I've assumed it's because they're being advised from the US (as they have been in the past).
US law is different to English and Scottish law and they never seem to understand that, nor will they accept it when this is pointed out.

By that analysis there are also no human rights because some people identify as fairies, cats or aliens. People spouting this shit are dingbats.

They can identify as whatever gender they like, they can’t identify out of their sex.

Presumably this is more legal word play following on from the fuck-up caused by the Gender Recognition Act. As that changes legal sex, then things like maternity leave can't be restricted by legal sex, because some who have changed their legal sex may still need it due to their biological sex.

But that in turn is (roughly) why Freddie McConnell can't expect to not be a mother - that's also decoupled from legal sex. Someone of either legal sex can be a mother - as long as they're biologically female.

It's a necessary corollary of making legal sex falsifiable - you can't actually base things that are predicated on biological sex depend on it.