Let Women Speak - a new song to extol the virtues and bravery of KJK!

• The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single BIOLOGICAL SEX services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to BIOLOGICAL SEX.
• To establish a separate or single-BIOLOGICAL SEX service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of BIOLOGICAL SEX is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.
• There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-BIOLOGICAL SEX service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-BIOLOGICAL SEX service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.
• When considering how your service is provided to trans people, you must balance the impact on all service users and show that there is a sufficiently good reason for excluding trans people or limiting or modifying their access to the service. Some service providers may find it helpful to have a policy for how services are provided to trans people. Where this is the case we recommend you develop a policy but this is not a legal requirement. If you do have a policy you should be prepared to consider whether particular circumstances justify departing from the policy.

Okay I just clarified 'sex' to mean 'biological sex' and it hasn't changed the meaning of any part of it.

I would have thought that would be part of the wording with an ambiguous meaning? Which part of the stuff I've posted has an ambiguous meaning and needs to be clarified?

The one word - sex. Obviously it doesn't have an ambiguous meaning but people that want it to have insisted that it does. So now we have to add the world biological to it.

What you're saying here, I still don't know which bit of the summary I posted needs to be clarified. Like you're saying some stuff here but I can't link it to the paragraphs I've posted? If there's part of the law that needs to be clarified (not changed) I would have thought that would be part of the wording with an ambiguous meaning? Which part of the stuff I've posted has an ambiguous meaning and needs to be clarified? Which sentence? Which words? I'm not being deliberately obtuse I'm just trying to understand how it's being 'clarified' and not changed.

People don't currently have the right to be housed in a prison according to their gender though do they, so it doesn't apply to prisons. I believe it's done on a case by case basis.

They rely on exactly the same legal exemption.

But the exceptions already relate to sex?

The clarification is necessary as male people "identify" as female and claim this is legally the same as biological sex.

It's not.

Why would there be exemptions for the female sex on the basis of personal choice or identity whether you are male or female? It cancels out the purpose of the exemption.

It's being clarified because of the relentless insistence that male people are female.

People don't currently have the right to be housed in a prison according to their gender though do they, so it doesn't apply to prisons. I believe it's done on a case by case basis.

They currently have the right to access toilets etc based on their gender or indeed their sex or whatever, it's not legally controlled. If the right to access spaces based on their gender was taken away then that removes some rights. Rights would be removed. I was asked what rights they're defending, as if there aren't any, and I've given an example of rights they are defending. You think that right should be taken away and people should only be able to access spaces based on their sex. So they're defending that right from people who think the same way you do.

You should apply all this to prisons and ponder on the implications. Dragging this onto toilets is a minimising tactic.

No I don't understand. I asked what bit of this needs to be clarified, and you said that the exceptions need to be clarified to relate to sex and not gender. But the exceptions already relate to sex? This is a summary about when services are allowed to exclude trans people, so I still don't know which part of it needs to be clarified. I've not come into this with prior knowledge about the Equality Act so I'm genuinely trying to understand what clarification is being campaigned for and what impact it would have.

I can't speak for Posie so maybe you should ask her. Since you found her tweet quite easily, I should imagine you could just as easily tweet her.

From my own perspective, I see it that the TQ+ have hitched themselves to the LGB and then behaved appallingly. The aggressive language, the endless harassment, the violence, the unreasonable demands, the Bridges-esque hysteria that there's fascism/Nazism/literal genocide...the risk is that that brush will be used to tar LGB people, who are nothing to do with the TQ+ campaigns, and damage the progress that's been made against homophobia. I would argue that the TQ+ end of the Alphabet Wordsalad have co-opted the LGB campaign and are almost using them like human shields.

So I can see exactly why some LGB people want a separation, and why that would be supported by the likes of Posie. And me.

@flaffydaffy

You seem to completely fail to understand what this is about. This is what the (currently hated by trans rights activists to the point of throwing piss everywhere) EHRC currently say. We know that they are an organisation with a high degree of ideological capture. Women have asked for the exemptions to be clarified that single sex means single sex, and not "actual women and males who identify as women".

Anyway, as I said at the start, you don't seem to me to be engaging in particularly good faith, so i'll leave it there.

Okay I found this summary:

• The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex.
• To establish a separate or single-sex service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.
• There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.
• When considering how your service is provided to trans people, you must balance the impact on all service users and show that there is a sufficiently good reason for excluding trans people or limiting or modifying their access to the service. Some service providers may find it helpful to have a policy for how services are provided to trans people. Where this is the case we recommend you develop a policy but this is not a legal requirement. If you do have a policy you should be prepared to consider whether particular circumstances justify departing from the policy.

This doesn't mention GRC except to say it doesn't matter whether the person has GRC or not. Which bit is going to get clarified?

if they currently have that right

Males with a gender identity have it as much as any other male. Hope that helps.

I don't really understand about the clarification of the law thing.

Yes that's clear. Oh well, never mind.

When I say "it" I'm not talking about the specifics of the 'clarification of the law' which I just said I don't understand. I mean anything that takes away the right of people to access spaces according to their gender, if they currently have that right and there is something that would take that right away. Whatever that law might be.

The exemptions have always been sex.

The claims have been that gender reassignment changes sex for the purpose of the exemptions without exception. The clarification is that biological sex is the basis of optional exemptions and so exclusion of people can indeed be legal on that basis.

It's really not complicated unless you are male and want the obfuscation to continue.

When I say "it" I'm not talking about the specifics of the 'clarification of the law' which I just said I don't understand. I mean anything that takes away the right of people to access spaces according to their gender, if they currently have that right and there is something that would take that right away. Whatever that law might be.

So, you don't want the law to change but you want some kind of statement that it is indeed acceptable to limit your services to single sex in certain circumstances if you wish?
That already exists in the Equality Act 2010.
Why do we need that?
Because there has been a huge effort to claim single sex means both sexes.

If we can already do it?

Because there has been a huge effort made to insist that in EQ2010 female includes male and female and vice versa on the basis of gender identity, not sex.

Where have you been? Are you new to this?

I don't really understand about the clarification of the law thing. I don't know why gender critical people want it so much if it apparently doesn't change anything and I don't know why trans activists care about it if it apparently doesn't change anything. Everyone says it doesn't change anything but it's also very important. So there's something I don't understand there.

Then it takes away the right from everyone.

It doesn't, it's a request for clarification of existing law.

So, you don't want the law to change but you want some kind of statement that it is indeed acceptable to limit your services to single sex in certain circumstances if you wish? Why do we need that? If we can already do it?

Why wouldn't you want to clarify this, given all the misinformation floating around? What difference would it make to you and trans rights activists?

I'm saying that's a reason why most businesses wouldn't make their toilets explicitly same sex only.

I think many businesses would if that's what their female customers wanted, and it was clearly allowed in law. They possibly can provide an additional gender neutral space. But given this belief of yours, what's the problem you have with clarifying the law?

Then it takes away the right from everyone. But trans people are the ones who are affected by it which is why they care about it.

So, you don't want the law to change but you want some kind of statement that it is indeed acceptable to limit your services to single sex in certain circumstances if you wish? Why do we need that? If we can already do it?

They currently have the right to access toilets etc based on their gender or indeed their sex or whatever, it's not legally controlled.

All men, not just the ones identifying as women have the "right" to access women's spaces. It's disingenuous to pretend that it's enshrined in the law that "trans people" can.

Flaffy, the exemptions for single sex spaces are optional, not mandatory and always have been. There will still be options, the clarification just means single sex will be clear in guidance and less open to legal threats.

It's balanced.

Cafes for all.

I'm not worried about entering an unpopular cafe, I'm saying that's a reason why most businesses wouldn't make their toilets explicitly same sex only. Because it would be marking themselves out as aligning with a controversial political movement. And why would they want that hassle.