How to respond: been asked what sex I was assigned at birth

Such a typical male response - we want, therefore we’ll take. Step aside ladies, the men are here.

Scratch that. It's not about the spaces. It's about the women in the spaces.

Yeah, and let those lesser women know which women matter.

Bravely fighting for the rights of men to access women's spaces.

Ah, the non trans women are back! Hurrah!

Trans women can and do use toilets based on their gender identity, and I don't want to stop that based on your selective nutpicking, and more than I want non-trans women to stop being nurses because of Lucy Letby.

Well, clearly they do, and have been for decades, but the EqA cements that. Give me one piece of case law to the contrary.

At least admit you want to change the law to remove that right rather than asserting that transgender people using the toilets associated with their gender identity is not legal.

They clearly have that right, unless there is a legimate and proportionate reason for a provider to exclude them, and they clearly use it, with no legal consequences, because it is legal. You are arguing to remove that right, which was my point.

You and others are welcome to set up spaces which exclude transgender people, and some providers have done this. What you do not have is the right to force providers to exclude trans women.

I am not demanding anything. I am answering the question "which trans rights do you want to remove?" You are confirming you want to remove those rights, then arguing in favour of doing so.

This does sum it up though?

A change to the Eq A to biological sex would make spaces single sex

It’s the only thing bar removing the GRA which would help women rather than men

@DadJoke

TWs do not have a right to enter women-only spaces. They have a right not to be discriminated against directly or indirectly by virtue of their sex or gender reassignment. That means they must have access to equally good provision as everyone else - a requirement that can be met by third spaces. Indeed, many such spaces have arisen, such as 'unisex' spaces, but at the expense of women-only provision.

What is the legitimate and proportionate aim of the abolition of women-only spaces? There must surely be one, otherwise providers are indirectly discriminating against religious minority women, who are not permitted to enter mixed-sex spaces and who therefore now have no provision at all.

(Just to add, the legitimate and proportionate test applies to all forms of discrimination.)

The Equality Act does not govern the "rights" of males to use female only spaces. A few years ago, contrary to claims, this hardly ever happened.

The right which transgender people have to use single-sex spaces matching their gender identity, unless there is a legitimate and proportionate reason to exclude them. Providers get to decide whether they want to use this exemption, and they sometimes do - for example, rape crisis centres have the option, and sports bodies make their own decisions. The attempts to define sex in the EqA is not a "clarification", but a straightforward change in the law which forces providers to exclude all transgender people from services matching their gender identity.

Any person operating a single sex space is already using the sex exception. Allowing some males without GRCs in is not a legitimate use of it.

The right which transgender people have to use single-sex spaces matching their gender identity, unless there is a legitimate and proportionate reason to exclude them

You've got this really arse about face. The "legitimate and proportionate reason" is the justification to exclude all men, i.e. to allow sex discrimination in some circumstances.

I have not heard a coherent definition of sex which divides all people into male and female.

And yet we are expected instead to accept categorisation according to "gender" - does that have a coherent definition, would you say?

Ah, so you want transwomen (i.e. men who say they're women) to be allowed to use women's toilets and changing rooms? Like, say Katie/Lennon Dolatowski? Or Andrew Miller/Amy George? Or Isla Bryson/Adam Graham? Or Karen White/Stephen Wood?

No thank you.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/01/25/her-penis-the-most-orwellian-phrase-of-our-age/

I think this is appropriate for this thread.

Moral derangement indeed.

"single-sex spaces matching their gender identity"

Let's parse this.
Single-sex spaces are segregated by sex.
You say users are entitled to the space matching their gender identity.
In this context, the matching gender identity is that of the opposite sex.
The single-sex space is still segregated by sex, so you are saying that gender identity is the same as sex.

Are you saying gender identity = sex?

If you are, the right you're demanding is a right to insist that a statement of personal identity alters material, legal, biological and social reality. Not only for the person claiming it, but for everyone who comes into contact with them.

That's quite some right. The only equivalents I can think of are those of ancient monarchs and some religious officials, who had the right to force everyone to believe they were divinely appointed.

Other people who've attempted to alter everyone's beliefs about them, in order to confirm their inner sense of identity, have been exposed and prosecuted as frauds.

The attempts to define sex in the EqA is not a "clarification", but a straightforward change in the law which forces providers to exclude all transgender people from services matching their gender identity

You would have to believe that female is a word that means male and female and male is a word that means male and female for any of that outlandish claim to make sense.

When you spend your life only every talking trans you end up sounding nonsensical.

The right which transgender people have to use single-sex spaces matching their gender identity, unless there is a legitimate and proportionate reason to exclude them. Providers get to decide whether they want to use this exemption, and they sometimes do - for example, rape crisis centres have the option, and sports bodies make their own decisions. The attempts to define sex in the EqA is not a "clarification", but a straightforward change in the law which forces providers to exclude all transgender people from services matching their gender identity.

You don't agree that trans women should be allowed to use women's toilets and changing rooms as they legally do at the moment. So, you want to remove that right.

"Sometimes" it is wrong. Many people have with DSDs do not reveal themselves when sex is assigned. Sometimes it's obvious. And no they don't "pluck the sex out of the air" - they use they available evidence on inspection to assign a legal sex at birth.

@DadJoke, which specific transgender rights are we trying to legislate against?

I have not heard a coherent definition of sex which divides all people into male and female.

Here you go: Presence of a Y chromosome means male.

Happy to help!

The only people with a legally assigned sex are those people that have a a gender recognition certificate.

Chromosal sex and other sex-based characteristics are determined in the womb. Sex is legally assigned at birth.

Both these things are true. Yes, transgender people have a sex assigned at birth - if there wasn't a discrepancy between their sex assigned at birth and their gender identity, they wouldn't be transgender. Transgender people are keenly aware of the reality of biology. So, no, I am not being remotely transphobic and your supposed concern for the feelings intersex people is simply that they mess up the simplified gender critical model of sex.

"Sex" and "gender" are terms which overlap in English. You can't, for example, change your chromosomes, but you absolutely can change many of your sexed charateristics, including your endocrine system. Gender critical people want to map legal sex to chromosomes to legislate specific transgender rights out of existence, and yet, I have not heard a coherent definition of sex which divides all people into male and female.