FPFW ask EHRC to clarify the lawful application of Schedule 9 Genuine Occupational Requirements

Another example:

If you have a non-binary male with a non-binary female, are they now homosexuals because it's same gender attraction?

I sometimes wonder whether newly formed groups such as FPFW realise that they themselves aren't very well informed.

There are exisiting example of how and when under the current law (which I am not saying I agree with!) allows for single sex provision. They have been quoted on many threads onf FWR.

Sometimes these campaigns are more keen to impress by appearing to by cutting edge but not reflecting the reality, and too often dismissing what is actually going on. ie even under the existing laws most service providers are very aware of what is allowed but it is external pressure that is hindering them, or withdrawing funding.

Like the inane remark in the Sonia Sodha article, which again dismissed groups who have struggled to survive for years, without women like Sonia or those at FPFW giving them any support. Or like that bright spark who made some comment at a Parliamentary committee that women's groups are struggling with the wording. No they aren't. Saying that again is about a group of newbies trying to present themselves as being in the forefront whereas they are trailing behind. (Just hopes she updates her skills are researching the implementation of women only services before messing up Sarah's defence.)

It isn't the wording that is the problem.

It is the cultivated obstruction.

And why would another set of examples when one already exists stop those who are doing the obstruction from continuing to do it.

Its strange how all these women put themselves forward as fighting for single sex provision but seem to have no idea about how groups who are doing it are run.

Which goes to show that the GRA was an Act passed for men and only men, men keep all their privileges as men and gain extra to the cost of women and Labour MP's think this is a marvellous law.

I wish Twitter had a dislike button as well as a like button.

It's such a joke that NK and Stonewall who are meant to advocate for same sex attraction, which is supposed to be a legally protected characteristic, can claim straight men are now lesbians.
It's the very definition of homophobia.

I just wanted to say thank-you to FPFW for their tireless dedication and determination. It is very much appreciated.

I can’t see any reason to include TW but not men to any of those scenarios.

Fair enough, many women will be ok with mixed sex book clubs- but then you wouldn’t be excluding other men would you? An all male or all female book group would be fair enough, there’s plenty of other mixed groups I would have thought. If women want it all women there’s a reason so yes, transwomen should not be admitted. If a group wishes to include transwomen fair enough. And an all trans book group would also be fine, and women should be excluded unless they identify as trans.

But the rest should all be single sex. It’s unreal anyone is arguing against it- the fact that a lesbian in charge of the biggest charity for (allegedly) supporting lesbians doesn’t agree they should have a place inaccessible by men is mind blowing! How does Nancy distinguish between trans lesbians and heterosexual men? Because their own definitions don’t make it that clear at times.

I find it hard to imagine any situation where a hitherto single sex group would wish to admit TW but continue to exclude other men.

Nice ratio Nancy.

Why should transwomen be included in all those things, Nancy? They are male, the females of this world are perfectly entitled to do things, be places and have their safety, privacy and dignity respected and that means excluding males when necessary or wanted.

I know it challenges your intelligence, Nancy, but sometimes women just want to be amongst other women with no men, however those men identify or whatever those men think they are. They and you, Nancy, just need to get over it.

Groups should be enabled to be single sex if they want to. All of the women only groups I can think of are women only because they acknowledge shared experience by virtue of sex. Otherwise, and where it doesn't matter they are mixed sex. I don't see books clubs or running groups as any different. If women want to meet with women it should be legal!!

I don’t know about book clubs but a formerly super TWAW now Terf friend of mine had a TW join her women’s running/walking group. Of course, all the women fell all over themselves to make them feel welcome and included. Then the TW started being inappropriate while they were running together - talking about sex or getting waxed or how their breasts were growing. The women felt uncomfortable but wrote it off as just bad social skills, just transitioning, doesn’t know how women behave yet. Felt guilty about feeling uncomfortable so doubled down on inclusion. Then TW started imitating women in the group - at first they wrote it off as plausible, just getting advice, doesn’t know how to dress, but it was getting like TW showing up in exact outfit one of the women was wearing last week with hairstyle imitated and everything, and literally imitating everything about their life. TW continued violating boundaries further - texting women late at night saying their breasts were hurting and did the women rub anything on their boobs, or saying they had a rash between their legs from sweat and what underwear were they wearing. Women now were getting creeped out extremely but still trying to be good allies and justify it. Then started stalking one of the women in the group and propositioning her sexually. Basically the women disbanded the running group and claimed to have injuries/child care/work/ going to gym instead. Friend turned into terf after that but other women apparently still in denial.

so keeping a book club single sex isn’t a strange desire.

Maya is on the case now

twitter.com/mforstater/status/1645430807736057856?s=46&t=A2fpFNgDRyXF2d6ye97wEA

And that twitter thread from Nancy Kelley is dystopian. It shows just how embedded this delusion is:

To make it easier to exclude trans lesbians men from lesbian support groups.
To make it easier to exclude trans women men from women’s book clubs
To make it easier to exclude trans women men from women only shortlists
To make it easier to exclude trans women men from women’s wards in hospitals, and from single sex services
To make it easier to exclude trans women men from women’s sports

FPFW are such a valuable organisation. Determinedly arguing women's case and intelligently using the courts to do so.

Love this QC!

Yes. All these things. (Except possibly bookclubs, maybe, but is this actually a real issue???)

Also it's not changing the definition. It's making it clear that sex is biological sex, which is something that, when the act was drafted, would have been blindingly obvious to everyone.

Transpeople are - rightly - protected by the characteristic 'gender reassignment'. It's only fair that women are protected, too, in those circumstances where it is just and proportionate to do so.

But back to the OP - I've seen the confused statement of 'women and non binary' or self identified women used repeatedly everywhere. Inc for educational events for girls.

Alllll the qts say, duh, yes Nancy!

Yes Nancy, that is exactly the point, so that ‘single-sex’ is respected where it is important. TW are completely entitled to use all spaces and services provided for their sex class, plus any that are provided exclusively for trans people. They are not excluded, ever.

It's almost parody now.

She's also popping up everywhere on my feed now. Interesting info here....

(Didn't realise she was still stonewall? Did I dream she left?)

It wouldn't be difficult. Basically 'yes' Nancy. To all those points.