This is just vile NHS again

In short: regardless of how often a male person states that through their beliefs they are women, you cannot compel other women to see and enable this, and wtf should they?

It's not like said male person plans to care how they feel or what they believe, is it?

What is the difference between a penis belonging to any other man and a penis attached to a male who identifies as a 'transwoman'?

Oh, I know this one! <jumps up and down with hand up>

The mouthfeel of a transwoman's penis to a lesbian would be totally different to the 'mouth feel' of a male penis on a person currently identifying as a man. Hence why lesbians are scolded for saying they don't care how a penis feels, they don't do penises, and women are scolded for saying they don't care how a biological male feels between their ears at this point in time, they still do not want to deal with said male in a state of nudity or when they are undressed.

But I suppose this is only something you can process if you think women are actual people with whole internal lives of their own, as opposed to sub human service units whose lives revolve entirely around what the male in front of them directs them to see, think and feel.

‘This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room.

Of course there wouldn't have been concern about a woman being undressed. What was presumably of concern was that this particular 'transwoman' was exposing 'her penis'. Exposing a penis in a women's changing room would normally be considered to be flashing, or indecent exposure, which is illegal. But somehow, if the penis is attached to a male who declares that he's a 'transwoman' then this is no longer a crime. What is the difference between a penis belonging to any other man and a penis attached to a male who identifies as a 'transwoman'?

👌

Apologies! I thought you had misunderstood my point

You need to work harder on your 'case law'. The link is to a summary of a case in an HR trade magazine and not the actual ruling. There is a little bit more to the case. The transgender employee brought a case of discrimination against an NHS trust. The trust had no desire to win the case and didn't challenge the judge's incorrect use of a woman as the comparator instead of another man.

Slightly off topic, but I'm sick to death of the way american voices have taken over Radio 4. I've just been listening to a 15 minute piece on 'sounds in the ocean'. Within a few minutes we were being told the ocean is a 'queer space'. 🙄

Those 'rights' are no more established than women's rights, at present. what we currently have is practices which have so far been operating in a fug of assumption, uncertainty and lack of clarity.

Can you only add to posts, or respond to them at all if you think they are disagreeing with you?

DadJoke will argue that a sentence saying "the sky is blue" actually tells you that the sky is yellow, if he thinks it'll support his homophobic views. He can't give an honest answer to anything. I've tried. He just runs away or pretends you've said something else - it's quite bizarre.

You quoted and replied me, and in this post I've quoted your reply to me.

You do realise I'm agreeing with you?

That link admits that exclusion, as a proportionate response to achieving a legitimate end, of transwomen (i.e. biological men) from women's sex-segregated services is lawful.

Women just think women's rights matter equally to the desired right of men to have access to them in states of vulnerability and undress, whether or not they consent.

There isn't any way to make this sound ok. Because it isn't.

A male is free to believe and identify however they choose. They are not entitled to require everyone else to go along with it, or to attempt to exploit law to have control over women at the expense of women's equality. Hence Kemi Badenoch's comment about this law being supposed to be a shield, not a sword for the means of attacking and harming others. And the work now in motion to fix the law beyond exploitation by those who would use it against women.

More case law, this time from a hospital trust relating to a changing room:

"Concluding, Employment Judge Sarah-Jane Davies ruled a female manager quizzed her because she is transgender. Judge Davies said: ‘A concern about the woman’s state of undress in the changing rooms was likely to be connected with the fact that she is a transgender woman.
‘This was a communal changing room with a shower cubicle. It did not seem to the Tribunal likely that there would have been a concern about a cisgender woman in a state of undress while changing in such a changing room.
‘The Tribunal therefore concluded that [the manager] asked the questions because of a concern that the woman as a transgender woman might be in a state of undress in the female changing room.
The employee won a claim of gender reassignment discrimination."

Gender critical people (not women in general) don't like the current legal position, and would like to remove transgender peoples' current established rights, but those rights exist.

https://www.thehrdirector.com/legal-updates/legal-updates-2022/transgender-nhs-worker-wins-gender-reassignment-discrimination-claim-concern-among-staff-woman-naked-waist-changing-room/

But at the same time, rigid boundaries are involved that are very strictly enforced.

Women are being asked to engage in a contract where:

they are not supposed to have boundaries about privacy
about mixed sex
about being exposed to male bodies in a state of nudity
about their consent being relevant

(lots and lots of word salad gambits to try and convince them that not having those boundaries is fun, modern, progressive, sensible, exciting, the marketing dept have worked hard)

and definitely not expect anyone to care about their boundaries, or respect them, never mind have them policed.

But those demanding this contract expect absolute boundaries on what said women are permitted to say, perceive, do,

You must use ONLY the words the person with boundaries requires
You must NOT at any time mention perceptions, facts or realities that the person with said boundaries has not approved
You must not leave the space in a way that the person with boundaries may find bruising to their ego
Just to name some.

Much guilt dumped for even CONSIDERING failing to respect these boundaries, and hate crime/possible police involvement is a threat for actual failure.

It's about compelling women to do what men find personally convenient, via seeing those women as non-human resources for male servicing. That's about it really. It isn't any shinier than that.

The case helpfully supports the guidance given in the Code on the provision of single (or separate) sex services to populations including trans people as being:

1. a starting point that trans people should be included consistent with their affirmed gender;
2. that possession (or not) of a GRC is irrelevant;
3. that any exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim;
4. with strong evidence required for separate provision of service to a trans person, and exceptional evidence for denial of service.

WTF is an 'affirmed gender'? I assume, since that piece is written by someone who (when still at the 'male crossdresser' stage) decided that they had the right to use a women's toilet if they were dressed in skirt and heels, that 'affirmed gender' is to do with clothing choices.

Why do you believe that crossdressing men should be allowed into women-only spaces?

Just a reminder of the sort of person that DadJoke thinks should be allowed into women-only spaces

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12453205/Kayla-Lemieux-trans-teacher-Canada-school-breasts-policy.html?ito=native_share_article-nativemenubutton

I think it is primarily a boundary issue. Boundaries of any sort are not on trend. Openness, boundarylessness and the free movement and expression of people is the trending zeitgeist.

But conversely, boundaries are now being re-drawn on what it permissible to think or say around the concept of 'gender'.

The whole queering concept is, in effect, to transgress conventional boundaries, especially as they pertain to sex, sexuality and personal expression.

This is it really.

Nothing, not even women being raped, is a sufficiently good reason to present a man with boundaries.

The issue is massive, massive misogyny.

it’s not a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

You don't see women's privacy, dignity, safety, inclusion and freedom from men to be legitimate.

And you don't see saying no to men a proportionate thing to achieve that for women.

You do you. Other people have the capacity to see women as human too.

Thanks for the link. Do you have one that actually references the EA2010?