Emma Nicholson in the Times

Go and try and understand what female people experience and feel. We get told over and over and over on these boards that if we'd just listen to a transwoman we'd understand and hand over our rights and not mind about our needs and feelings any more, we'd gladly put that male person's needs first.

Rational as this is, it seems rationality has nothing to do with this.

The expectation is that being heard, understanding, kindness and compassion are the entitlement of a sacred caste and these are to be supplied by service humans. There seems to be a complete absence of any expectation of reciprocity far less respect for the dignity of women and insight into our lived experience.

Sadly, it seems that talking about our lived experience, traumatic though it sometimes is, is to be deprecated as it 'flaunts privilege'.

@RobinMoiraWhite If you want more infomration on the rape that didn't happen, was just "some woman" talking try this thread.

Have the honesty to read it, to digest the contents and be completely professional in your undertsanding of it!

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4507790-Hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-because-attacker-transgender

TLDR: Woman in hopital sys she has been raped, calls the police; hosputal says no rape cpudl have happened as there are no males there; Ooops! You forgot the CCTV!; A year later, and the woman is now being believed!

Disgusting doesn't cover it!

So what we get from that is that Lord Etherton simply cannot read?!

Or he deliberately chooses to misrepresent the Act despite knowing how the Guidance Notes specifically clarify exemptions?!

His explanation is outrageous, risibly so. We can see it is. But RMW used precisely the same 180degree logic in that bookwotshewrote. So maybe I shouldn't be surprised.

When men think so little of women there are no depths to which they will not sink!

Worse! When such men consider women an inconvenience, something to be overstepped, they will sink even further.

Great article. Thank you, Emma, for your continued commitment.

[quote MrsOvertonsWindow]I expect the NHS specifically arranged for this trans paedophile with many previous sex offences to be in a women's hospital ward while they used the wi fi to watch their extensive collection of child sex abuse images. Women are considered bigots if we fail to welcome Julie sleeping alongside us in hospital

thebridgehead.ca/2020/07/17/bbc-reports-on-disturbing-female-pedophilia-case-the-catch-shes-not-really-female/

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3830943-aibu-to-think-that-a-paedophile-s-sex-is-actually-relevant-when-they-re-convicted[/quote]
JFC

Also, I’m very surprised to see someone advocating to discount protecting people on account of “being in a minority”, while pursuing the goal of…protecting people who are in a tiny minority.

That makes absolutely no sense as a principle.

Personally, I believe that we should try our best to protect people in minorities, as far as we are able while not significantly infringing on the majority’s rights.

Kind of weird not to, as utilitarianism clearly has its limitations.

If Robin really believed that a clear minority of women have an issue with losing single sex spaces, Robin likely wouldn’t have written a book of wishful thinking rather than objective legal analysis, and certainly would not be so invested in trying to prove women on Mumsnet wrong.

Some women - a clear minority

No-one believes this. I'm quite sure Robin doesn't either.

For decades, MPs have been trying to represent the views of their constituents in getting more sex segregation, not less.

And the current iteration of sexism hasn't changed any of it.

It's being addressed across every paper in the land, on radio stations, in interviews, blogs, podcasts, it's being put to every politician.

Every poll is overwhelmingly in favour of sex segregation. Otherwise, guess what, we wouldn't bloody well have it, would we?

If men didn't want it and the majority of women didn't want it, why on earth would it even exist 🙄

Honestly. It's no surprise to me, at least, that chapters of your book, Robin, were completely out of date as soon as it was published. You don't understand the law, and you're completely divorced from the general public.

So fuck your "it never happens" because what you really mean is "I don't care who it happens to."

The simple truth.

Oops Lord Etherton of course, not what I wrote!

Stonewall et al have advised public and private sector organisations for years now that it's all about not excluding those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from services and spaces provided for the opposite sex

This is certainly what Lord Etherton seems to believe. And he also says in his speech that paragraph 27 that you quoted (along with paragraph 26) "are irrelevant, as they deal with sex discrimination."

Link to his speech:
hansard.parliament.uklords/2022-03-16/debates/84C9B6AA-0214-4CEF-A41D-302373BDC190/HealthAndCareBill#contribution-2C34DA23-A5AD-483E-ACB8-AF8A5C547F73

And read the pregnancy and birth threads. Thousands of females in one of the scariest times of their life - notice how many of them are stressed and made miserable by the presence of male visitors on the ward, especially at night. What the experience of vulnerability in a female body is like.

Read the threads of women trying to escape and recover from abusive relationships, life in refuges, ptsd, the years of trauma and being triggered, trying to continue parenting while often dealing with ongoing abuse.

The threads of women trying to recover from the abuse experienced in childhood that is unique to the female experience because it involved their discovering, often at a young age, what it is like to live in biology that male people feel entitled to. And that your consent isn't irrelevant.

The threads about living with periods, trying to manage flooding and miscarriages in public loos, what that's like.

Go and try and understand what female people experience and feel. We get told over and over and over on these boards that if we'd just listen to a transwoman we'd understand and hand over our rights and not mind about our needs and feelings any more, we'd gladly put that male person's needs first.

I'm saying the exact same thing. Go listen . Try listening to why females need female only spaces and what will happen to those females if male people successfully remove them for their own needs and benefits.

He says that removing a male transgender person with a penis from a women's ward because some of the women feel uncomfortable (perhaps because they fear being raped, perhaps just discomfort at being placed in such a situation with a male while they are vulnerable) is not a 'legitimate aim'.

He is wrong. And I quote from Schedule 3, Part 7 of the Equality Act 2010:

Single-sex services

27(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—

(a)any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.

(3)The condition is that—
(a)the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.

(4)The condition is that—
(a)a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.

(5)The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)a hospital, or
(b)another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.

(6)The condition is that—
(a)the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.

(7)The condition is that—
(a)there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.

Note that conditions 6 and 7 specifically refer to it being reasonable to object to the presence of another person purely because they are of the opposite sex. This includes women's feelings of discomfort at having their privacy and dignity violated by the presence of men.

Note also that no reasonableness test is required in the case of hospitals. The fact that it is a hospital is enough reason to separate the sexes. Furthermore, the Equality Act 2010 goes on to specifically refer to

Gender reassignment

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)The matters are—
(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;
(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;
(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.

As the judgement in For Women Scotland vs Scottish Government reminds us, for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, there are men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and women with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, with men defined as males of any age and women defined as females of any age.

And that provisions made only for women by definition exclude biological males.

Although this judgement is not binding on courts in England and Wales, it is the most recent interpretation of the Equality Act in this regard, made by the highest civil court in Scotland, and it does therefore carry considerable weight when deciding on these matters.

So, Lord Fetherington is wrong and he makes the usual mistake of forgetting that the discrimination provisions are mainly about not excluding a man with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from services and spaces provided for all other men and not excluding a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from services and spaces provided for all other women. As well as not treating those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment less favourably than members of their own sex in all other areas of public life.

Stonewall et al have advised public and private sector organisations for years now that it's all about not excluding those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment from services and spaces provided for the opposite sex, and that has skewed the understanding of this to our detriment. But they did not tell the whole story, did they?

RMW you should read the AIBU on this

This is what women feel

We are angry

Fucking angry

I've decided it's because it gives an insight into the mindset of people in the legal system and the shared training that produces those who are closely involved with the handling of rape complainants and:
—the decision to prosecute the case or not
—the dismal outcomes of the negligible number that do go to court.

Beyond that, I have a unshakeable feeling that it's also an insight into what I'll characterise as, "We can't consent to this" and "sex gone wrong" cases and sentencing.

Misogyny and an absence of care for the dignity of women or a shared respect for the lived experience of women is at the heart of both of these: there are many other shortcomings that mean the legal system fails women in every area of life and denies accountability for those who exploit vulnerabilities, from physical through to financial.

He continues that the there would be no reason to have the protected characteristic if a male could not self-identify into a female-only space.

That's obvious nonsense. The primary point of the protected characteristic is to stop someone transitioning or planning to transition from being denied service or fired or the like.

Exactly the same as all the other protected characteristics.

That's quite separate from anything about treating them as the opposite sex.

Stuff about single-sex exemptions permitting sex discrimination with a legitimate aim, and how those exemptions interact with GRCs and the gender reassignment characteristic is a more complex separate issue.

We haven't even managed to establish that women are allowed female-only spaces from their protected characteristic, let alone that trans people are permitted in opposite-sex spaces. It's a higher-level issue from simple "discrimination".

attributes of a different sex, such as name, dress or hair,

It's all about your hair, ladies. All about the hair.

Saying that the only reason for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is to override the protected characteristic of sex is not what I thought was intended.

No, but it's arguably what the GRA is aiming to do.

Did you watch the debate? Lord Etherton set the law out quite clearly.

Extracts from Lord Etherton's speech:

Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. The Act defines that protected characteristic in very wide terms. It includes where a person is proposing to undergo, or is undergoing, a process, or part of a process, for the purpose of reassignment by changing physiological or other attributes of sex. This means that a person may have the protected characteristic without having undergone full surgical reassignment, let alone having a gender recognition certificate. It will be sufficient, for example, if they had adopted attributes of a different sex, such as name, dress or hair, in their intended process of transition.

Under the Equality Act, a person who provides a service to the public, which would include the National Health Service, must not discriminate against a trans person in the terms on which the service is provided; nor can they subject the trans person to any other detriment or harass them. The service provider must make reasonable adjustments where appropriate.

If matters stopped there, the NHS would be acting unlawfully in failing to allocate accommodation and other facilities to match the gender identity of transsexuals.

...any permitted derogation from the anti-discrimination and anti-harassment provisions governing the NHS in relation to trans people requires a case-by-case appraisal. Any derogation must be for a legitimate aim. It is not a legitimate aim that some people feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation and facilities with trans people of the opposite birth sex. That would make a nonsense of having the statutory protected characteristic in the first place.

He says that anyone is protected under the PC of gender reassignment as soon as they change their name or some superficial aspects of their appearance and they must then be allocated accommodation according to their 'gender identity' and to do otherwise would be unlawful discrimination.

He says that removing a male transgender person with a penis from a women's ward because some of the women feel uncomfortable (perhaps because they fear being raped, perhaps just discomfort at being placed in such a situation with a male while they are vulnerable) is not a 'legitimate aim'.

He continues that the there would be no reason to have the protected characteristic if a male could not self-identify into a female-only space.

This is not how I understand the Equality Act is supposed to work. Saying that the only reason for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is to override the protected characteristic of sex is not what I thought was intended.

We have evidenced through court women who have been raped in prisons through male prisoners being provided with access to them. We now have a raped woman in a hospital ward.

They still don't count, do they?

Pick a number. How many women have to be raped, harmed or worse before male people might possibly consider that they have some duty of care worth infringing male freedoms for?

And then explain why it is that there is this bafflingly patriarchial view that women are just vassals and men are the keepers of the facts, the determiners of resources and the arbiters of when women may be granted the official recognition that yes, they have a bit of a problem and permission is graciously given to look into it a bit?

The 1800s called. They want their sexism back.

Also where is the evidence that males who identify as women are less dangerous to women than other males.

Yes, and I'd like to see polls using clear English. Judging by Twitter, some who say they have been subjected to violence actually mean 'My colleague didn't use my pronouns/My Mum called me by my deadname/The cashier [seeing a 6'2 broad-shouldered customer] misgendered me' and so on. These incidents may be upsetting but they aren't what most of us mean by violence.

Re evidence and anecdote. Where is the evidence that transwomen suffer on male wards? Where is the evidence that any transwoman has been raped or assaulted in a hospital?
Surveys and personal testimony are either evidence or anecdotes but that definition must apply to both women and transwomen. Surveys must be properly constructed and analysed to expose flaws.