Woman's hour 2nd April 2024 JKR's 'hate' thread

@MissScarletInTheBallroom
The EA2010 does not say explicitly that women a right to single sex toilets, but if they are not provided, women may have a claim for sex discrimination depending on the exact circumstances. Miller, a case in the EAT, established the principle that toilet provision which means that you have to effectively share with men, would be discriminatory. A row of unisex, self-contained cubicles with sanitary bins in them would be ok.

The EA2010 is not the only law that governs toilets specifically. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 (which have the force of law) prescribe separate provision for men and women (or unisex individual, lockable self contained cubicles if there is no space for separate blocks).

Here's an incredibly weird take from The Guardian in its article on today's developments:
the author and gender-critical activist posted a thread on X saying the legislation was “wide open to abuse” after listing sex offenders who had described themselves as transgender alongside well-known trans women activists, describing them as “men, every last one of them”.

So trans women who are activists are "trans women activists" but trans sex offenders are "sex offenders who had described themselves as transgender."
The actual guardian, refusing to unquestioningly take someone's self-ascription of gender identity as their actual gender identity! What's that all about?
(https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/02/jk-rowling-will-not-be-arrested-under-new-scottish-hate-law-say-police)

Making lists of people with a protected charateristics who have committed crimes

JKR didn't make a list of trans criminals. There were some criminals on that list, but there were also athletes and a former newsreader. What JKR did do was make a list of people who are insisting on entering women's prisons, sports teams, and swimming ponds whilst male.

the statistics they've cobbled together are correct

By "cobbled together", you mean the ones collected for decades by the Office for National Statistics?

If JKR was using this approach for black people, or gay people, all of you (I hope) would be up in arms against it.

Black women commit no more sexual and violent offences than white women. Likewise lesbians compared to straight women.

Black men commit no more sexual and violent offences than white men. IIRC they commit slightly fewer than white men. Gay men commit no more sexual and violent offences compared to straight men.

Whereas males make up slightly under half of the population yet commit over 95% of sexual offending. And we know that gender reassignment does not alter that.

Facts don't care about your feelings. Facts don't care about your dishonest attempts to compare apples with basketballs.

But no, this is your pet hate group, so you support it.

It's not "hate" to want males to stay out of female spaces and sports. It's merely having boundaries. When women having boundaries is framed as "hate", you know that you are dealing with a misogynist male entitlement movement.

The EHRC has provided the following paragraph in its latest guidance:

"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."

It seems to have completely overlooked the need to keep out DadJoke's bad actors.

The guidance is well worth a read:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and

Oh, more radio interviews, please! I created an accompanying image of two blokes chatting; the medium really drills down to the chromosomes, doesn’t it…

She's bloody amazing.

Can I just say that I am thrilled that JKR has, within 24 hours of the new Hate Crime Law being in place in Scotland forced the police to clarify that calling a trans woman a man (the truth) is not a hate crime.

Brava!

The man who jerked off to me (and all the other schoolgirls passing through the park by the women’s toilets) was wearing a see-through womens nightie. I have no idea if he thought he was trans (in the late 80s it wasn’t a thing that was well known). He had a mans trench coat and boots on and blue eyeshadow and bright red lipstick. The difference is he was jumping out at us from outside the toilets but presumably wasn’t going inside.
No one reported him as we just avoided him and going near the park toilets. Funny enough he slid back behind the toilets if he saw a man.
I am annoyed I didn’t report him now but as the time it was embarrassing and was a timid teenager and didn’t want to have to talk about it and he was obviously mentally disturbed. It also wasn’t too much of a threat as I could easily run away. The difference now is that he would be inside the toilets.

The reason the bill doesn’t include women is that it would be unworkable as so much stuff goes on that doesn’t even get reported due to my reasons above. My own daughters needed picking up from the gym as men were slowing down their vans to whistle at them and they were getting frightened. I did report a huge hgv lorry from a big department store to the head office (she didn’t want to and were too intimidated to take a phone photo). That incident was one daughter on her own in school uniform. She was sobbing as the lorry actually stopped on a main A road. She was so scared that they would get out she ran home. They sounded the horn as she ran and they pretended they were getting out and laughed. This presumably would be a hate incident/crime if she was a transman? The company hr seemed good but couldn’t place the lorry. I asked that a memo get sent round to all drivers.

This is true.

There is no such thing as a toilet which matches any kind of gender identity.

If if women's spaces are now for people with a woman gender identity, there are now no longer any spaces for me and many other people to use.

Yes we do.

Sex is a protected characteristic.

We exclude all male people from female only spaces because they are male.

Would you like to try answering the question again?

How do we keep all "bad actors" in the category (the category being male people who say they identify as female) out of female only spaces, whilst letting the nice ones who believe they should be the exception to the rule into them?

Yes, on the level of applying to be a scout leader, we look at the individual via the means of criminal record checks etc.

But in accessing public changing rooms and toilets we cannot act on the level of the individual and must act on the group as a whole. i.e. we keep men out of women’s spaces with a blanket ban.

Trans women’s patterns of criminal behaviour are closer to those of men (because they are men) than to women’s patterns of offending.

Dadjoke knows exactly what women are hence he’s always on mumsnet mansplaining rather than scolding men on pistonheads about transphobia

@DadJoke always does that. I suspect it’s supposed to deliberately goad.

Are you defining transwomen as any male person who claims a trans identity or do you have some other definition

@DadJoke Why do you think single-sex spaces exist?

Dadjoke only gives TW so much slack because he doesn't understand how scary it is as a woman to have a man in women's spaces and how vunerable that makes women feel.

He's ignorant.

You are not on a thread about gay people, disabled people, religious people or whatever false equivalent you wish to use at any given moment.

We are talking about MEN and how a certain subset of MEN have managed to gain additional rights and access to places other men can't access.

Now most of us on here don't think that is fair on women.

We exclude the whole male half of the population from women only spaces because a small percentage of those men are bad men so why do you think a particular subset of that half of the population should be given additional rights that the other men don't have?

Why should women lose the rights and protections they have because a subset of men have said "I am a woman"??

non-trans women

You mean women. FFS.

This is where the refusal by the police to record sex (biological) instead of Gender Identity makes everything fall down.

Because while it will be nearly impossible difficult to prove that trans women have been getting up to nefarious things in ladies' toilets (apart from when they post the evidence themselves) if there was a police report (because their GI will be recorded)

It will also be nearly impossible difficult to prove that hate crimes against transgender people are increasing (or indeed happening) unless on those occasions the police record biological sex as well as GI.

(Edited for uselessness at strikethrough)

We do not exclude all people with a protected characteristic based the existence of bad actors with that characteristic. We don't seek to ban all asylum seekers because some commit crimes, unless we are Tommy Robinson.

But the UK is not a designated place for non-asylum seekers only. Whereas a women-only space is a space for women only. Do you not see the difference?

We do not exclude all people with a protected characteristic based the existence of bad actors with that characteristic.

It's really the other way round. We don't let a subset of people who don't have the relevant protected characteristic in because they're 'nice'.

Letting a subset of males into a womens single sex space is not excluding on the basis of the relevant protected characteristic.

We do not exclude all people with a protected characteristic based the existence of bad actors with that characteristic. We don't seek to ban all asylum seekers because some commit crimes, unless we are Tommy Robinson.

I agree with the EqA which allows trans women to use use toilets and other spaces associated with their gender identity with the exceptions provided in the EqA.

But there are no such spaces, except that males have walked into single sex spaces and made them so without women's consent. What purpose is served by a division based on the nebulous concept of 'gender identity', which definitely isn't binary (where do you want those with a nonbinary identity to go?) and which can be fluid?

There should be very few segregated spaces, and the only meaningful and necessary basis for them is sex.

As the law stands, if you punch a person with a protected characteristic and it's because of their protected characteristic, it's an aggravated offence, just as it is if you punch a police officer.

For reasons I do not entirely understand, the Law Commission thought that including sex as a protected characteristic on the hate crimes list would be counterproductive. I don't understand why, and based on my limited understanding I don't agree.

I think it's abusive. I don't think it's illegal.

That is not an answer to the question I asked, which is how you let the nice trans women in whilst keeping the bad actors out.

Or are you saying we must let all the bad actors in?