Trans women ban in single sex spaces

I’m sure that at least in Scotland, the captured people in charge- Rape Crisis Scotland and the Scottish govt made funding for Rape Crisis Centres conditional on including men in the women’s provision cos ‘inclusion’ and at least some refused and lost their funding which went to an organisation run by the husband of one Mridhul Wadwha, woman hating CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis. I’m sure the issue was inclusion of these men at all costs, not cost of providing a parallel service.

Because they seem to be all over the place. Prisons. Rape Crisis Centres. Refuges. Gym changing rooms. NHS changing rooms.

Do you really think that the men who are usually the ones taking management decisions are going to be bothered about going through the process of applying, invoking the SSE?

Most refuges have lost their funding, not because of whether or not TW are allowed to use the service but because in terms of the men in the finance department who do the costings think it is too expensive to have women only.

The power of the TRAs is built on the centuries old and institutionalised MRAs view of the world.

The main problem with the SSS (apart from the fact that there needs to be a law about it) is the highly sucessful misinformation spread by Stonewall etc..

And of course intimidation.

And the fact that will will go on the street to protect their pension rights (WASPIs) and abortion (numberous demos) but there is no public representation of women being angry about this.

Hard as it is to accept but 99.9% of the world do not read FWR, or the odd article that appears in the right wing press.

So overwhelmingly the TRAs have won the public battle.

Even those who dont think it is right, still think this is the law.

And if you dont believe me just look up the provisions of the SSE in the EA where Rape Crisis Centres are used as an obvious example of why men with a GRC should be excluded.

Which the Times could have done by doing a basic fact check.

It is another example of how so many institutions have been Stonewalled.

Thanks goodness the EHRC are going to the heart of the problem. That the protected characteristic of sex is the only characteristic that is undermined by another bill.

But of course the problem is that anything that is an women's issues never gets treated seriously. Even is a so called quality paper.

PS once you have fact checked what I have said by looking up the EA you could let the Times know they have got it wrong.

I’m not sure I fully understand @IwantToRetire are you saying that there are no males using SSS, or that there should be no males using SSS because the EA allows for their exclusion?

I agree that the EA does allow for their exclusion, however it’s evident based on service provider policies, numerous reports and the court cases that males ARE using Female SSS. The Scottish govt have confirmed that males are in female prisons and will continue to be placed in female prisons on a ‘case by case basis’, that males are allowed to use female domestic abuse and rape crisis centres, and have actually recently voted to defund services that don’t allow males into those services if they claim to be TW.

First of all please remember that many newspapers dont bother to fact check and will inadvertently, or for the sake of a good headline blur the issue.

re SSE ie single sex spaces / services - obviously it is in reference to the EA. This means that no male person, even if they have a GRC can use these services.

As we all know particularly in Scotland but not exclusively, some funders, politicians and ever providers have said they are. But had to stop saying that once Lady Haldane specifically said that under the SSE no man with a GRC is allowed to use the service. In fact after the ruling even Nicola Sturgeon admitted this was the legal position and Labour of course said that's why we wrote them.

This thread is about a newspaper article that has attempted (because none of us have actually seen the statement) what the EHRC is now saying having been asked by this Government to provide more explicit guidelines of implementing the EA, not just in relation to the SSE but to the occassions when a man with a GRC is allowed to be admitted, included in a supposedly women's event, service or whatever. (There was a thread about this because of published guidelines on when you could or could not invoke the SSE)

Their suggestion that GRC should be shown is to make it clear that self identity is not legally recognised in the UK.

But they have also said which is propably more important than the ruling for the Supreme Court whatever it says, is that the GRA ie GRC should NOT be applied to the EA because it is in fact discrimination against the protected characteristic of sex.

No othe protected characteristic is impinged on in this way.
It is a shame really that the actual statement isn't published and that it coincides with the forth coming ruling.

It is a really, really important moment because it is the EHRC - the organisation the Government says is the final word on implementing equality in the UK - is telling the UK Government the law as written is discriminatory.

This has far more significant than clarifying the word sex.

Because if (which I think is unlikely) the EA was changed so that there was no part of it saying someone with a GRC was actually to be treated as the opposite sex to the one they were born, the issue of when TW were effectively "legal women" would never happen. (Unless in a section the direct opposite of the SSE there was a short list of when a man with a TW was a "legal woman" maybe for a marriage certificate or something.)

Worth remembering the FWS court case is about the Representation on Boards bill in Scotland. ie that boards shouldn't be able to claim they had equal representation of women on a board if in fact some of them are TW.

I assume the notion being that if the court rules that in terms of equal representation of men and women a TW doesn't count as a woman, it could (should) mean this rule should be applied to any number of occassions when TW are counted as women.

But as TW are already excluded from SSS, the court case isn't about that.

That's why the EHRC statement about what the new guidelines should say is so significant.

(alrady posted on another thread)

This is the third or fourth thread based on misinformation by MSM.

At no time legally has any one who self identifies as a woman allowed in SSS.

And in face under the law no man with a GRC is allowed in a service provided under the SSE.

Please fact check before repeating media misinformation.!

Totally right!

This is the absolute crux of the issue. What thought process prevailed; what dereliction of vigilance? What pure, blatant misogyny allowed anyone to falsify an important, basic document, where you can change the reality of your birth?

How did we either allow this to happen, were #BeKind blindsided or disregarded to this egregious extent?

Sadly, that’s an accurate summary of our politics @SionnachRuadh.

But - can you honestly imagine the reaction in the dog & duck once the legislative impact of a GRC meaning a male is a female for all purposes in law, starts to hit home?

I mean first they’d laugh, then they’d try to see how they could take advantage, but then they’d work out true implications. That it isn’t just a minority of people that they’ve never paid attention that it applies to.

I’m sure they’ll start off following the script, but it will become harder and harder to keep it up.

Much as I'd love to see the GRA repealed, Labour MPs will never vote for anything that could be framed as "taking away rights". Even smart ministers like Wes Streeting or Shabana Mahmood, who might be good on other aspects, would be very reluctant to say "this is a terrible piece of legislation and it needs to be repealed".

And, Kemi notwithstanding, most current Conservative MPs are either wets who sincerely agree with Labour, or they're terrified of TRAs calling them bigots. Polls showing the public would support a tougher stand aren't doing much to stiffen backbones.

So it's a question of either waiting for a Reform government, or hoping that it gets gutted in court to the point where a GRC is about as meaningful as a certificate saying you belong to the Green Lantern Corps.

I agree that this is a case of the legislature fucking around and finding out, but getting rid of a bad piece of legislation is easier said than done.

My Labour MP has a pretty much stock c&p response to any question or comment:

1 - the most important thing about women's rights and equalities is respect for men (seriously. Every answer says this.)

2 - Labour policy is right and brilliant always, yay Labour

3 - If it's a problem it's because a bigger boy did it and ran away, and it's nothing to do with us.

Waiting with baited breath to see what Wednesday brings and then see what this government decides to do to actually protect women.

Unfortunately I don't have must trust in the Labour Party on this issue, but we'll see soon enough now.

They’re proud of a law to prioritise male sex fetishists’ wishes above women’s and children’s needs, based on a blatant lie and requiring the population to pretend to believe that lie.

How admirable.

The GRA has to be up there with one of the worst laws ever drafted

But Labour are "so proud" of it. And I don't see them saying, fair cop, we got it wrong, anytime soon.

Good.

Ah I see. It really does make a mockery of everything. Official id - women’s consent - reality. An absolute mockery.

The GRA has to be up there with one of the worst laws ever drafted.

If you build it, they will come.

It is. This is what happens when the legislature play games of fuck around and find out.

If you as a woman are faced with a six foot chap with stubble, full equipment bulging, and you're in a confined space where you planned to get undressed or he's in a job role where he's about to intimately touch you, are you going to predicate your response and your consent on whether or not he has a nice certificate at home, or that his sex has been properly and legally falsified on a birth certificate?

It's an even greater absurdity and insult than being expected to try to arrange your boundaries around what medication he might have taken, what cosmetic surgery he might have had, his chosen clothes and appearance, and how 'sincere' he might be.

Yes, but we also want to be able to exclude the men with F on their birth certificate as well.

We certainly do, but PP meant that if you meet a man with a female birth certificate, you know he's got a GRC

Thinking about these problems is like thinking about getting the fox, the chicken and the corn across the river

Yes, but we also want to be able to exclude the men with F on their birth certificate as well.

We can see how this is being made extremely challenging.

At a personal level, obviously we have eyes and can see that it is a bloke stood in front of us. At an organisational level, said bloke will have all female id including birth certificate so short of a cheek swab to provide official verification, how can we exclude them in practice? A kind of ‘computer says yes’ scenario. Maybe we need proper biometric id?

Does anyone remember that the government also managed to change the law to benefit the small number of men of the right age who wanted to take advantage of the earlier retirement age for women? They were not able to sort anything helpful for WASPI women but men who wanted to retire 5 years early on full state pension - yes, law change no problem!

Ah, thank you for clarifying.

All a man needs is a certificate costing £5, and he’ll have free access to all women’s spaces. What misogynist or sex fetishist would not buy one?

Destruction tested. Put in place -without consultation or proper thought and usually without considering those who are going to be impacted - out of a well meaning attempt to be kind, and left to roll. It's never ended in sunshine and roses and turned out to be a good thing. It has however proved why it was a really bad idea in the first place.

Some questions that really ought to be being asked by government at this point:

Are these little loopholes usually/always/never exploited by bad actors?

Do they form 'the thin end of the wedge' permitting more extremist/bad actors to force open doors to what they really wanted but would never have been permitted or considered reasonable to demand? Once that wedge is under leverage what is there to stop it being forced endlessly wider in pursuit of goals by the powerful?

When this forcing and leveraging is going on, who benefits and who loses under the law, justice, ethics, society, those kind of things? Whose legal protections get looser? Which of those losing groups needed those protections in the first place precisely to avoid bad actors/more powerful groups subordinating them?

How easy is it to turn around one of these well meaning little experiments when it's been destruction tested and has all gone horribly wrong? What kind of a mess will there be to clean up?

And with all that in mind, would it be a good idea for any legislator with a grain of sanity to ever bloody consider doing this again?

"Psychological" DSD was what was pushed. (Just going back to my earlier post.)