Islington Council slams 'botched' single sex spaces guidance

Logical progression from the moobment's mass public exposures.

Men threatening to "lift their skirt".

A winning strategy.

It all points to the reality that tons of transgender people live in what's called stealth, which means people around them do not know that they are trans. This forum refuses to acknowledge that this marvel exists, and yet there are tons of stealth trans people around.

Rather unfortunate that absolutely zero of them are involved in the "trans rights" movement, and instead they're campaigning for the rights of obvious blokes.

Can I suggest you start a campaign for these stealth transgender people, and get some public representatives?

Can you explain how? Because as trans woman my documents state F. Do I need to lift my skirt? Or is this based on the "we can always tell" that gets tons of cis women misgendered on the regular?

I do hear them just fine, even in the paragraph I posted it acknowledges them.

But it also states that they are not in balance of the distress the opposite causes to transgender individuals.

And this is how actually balance of laws works, not the nonsense Falkner states like this is some "winner takes it all contest". It's matter of ACTUAL balance, aka how much does group A suffers vs group B gains.

Here you have maybe some discomfort for group A - cis woman, vs, and this is per judgement in Goodwin and few others "creating impossible to live in situation" for group B.

And just how overblown is the threat from trans women is best shown by the fact that met has not registered singular instance of a trans woman attacking a cis woman in toilet or single sex space. Literally not once has this happened. There were some chancers (2 to be exactly, across 21 years of data) who tried to "transition" after being caught, but that's not the same, is it? But it gets thrown out as prime example of it anyway.

That misinformation and sensationalisation is majority of your discomfort, not reality. If you stepped out of an echo chamber and put some critical effort into the data coming in, your perception would shit. I welcome you to come to some of the more open trans meetups and meet the people there.

Yes, on multiple fronts.

1. You got caricature view of who transgender people are, expecting something grotesque out of a meme, rather than a person. Come to a meetup, learn a reality, some of them welcome CIS respectful people, google around.
2. We do not plan to show genitals to anyone, it's what the guidance of EHRC suggests as a way to confirm "biological sex" as any other means of "proving your sex" includes transgender people as all their documents - birth certificat included - show the correct sex. Though even would not be accurate for individuals who undertook genial surgery.

It all points to the reality that tons of transgender people live in what's called stealth, which means people around them do not know that they are trans. This forum refuses to acknowledge that this marvel exists, and yet there are tons of stealth trans people around. But unless you are close friend with them you would never know as they won't tell you. And they don't have to, we have the right to keep it private.

Aka the transphobic dreams of easy outing ot transgender people just does not live up to practical realities. Recent example is the latest transphobic lcommunity dating app, with it's massive anti-trans check that they call "effective".. Except there are so many many of transgender on it already that it really is a t4t dating site.

But "we can always tell" lie continues.

I’ve never understood this business about trans people being outed. Do men honestly think nobody knows they’re a man underneath the lippy, dangly earrings and spinny skirt?
And I don’t understand what they think they’ll achieve by showing their genitals to unsuspecting receptionists, other than confirming they are men who want to expose themselves in public.
Have I completely misunderstood the situation?

I’ve never understood this business about trans people being outed. Do men honestly think nobody knows they’re a man underneath the lippy, dangly earrings and spinny skirt?
And I don’t understand what they think they’ll achieve by showing their genitals to unsuspecting receptionists, other than confirming they are men who want to expose themselves in public.
Have I completely misunderstood the situation?

Literally one of two issues in T.H. was that a person had to disclose their trans status when entering id-requiring services, which was many of them, and that was found to be a direct breach of Article 8.

So that literally what was settled in T.H. (and few other cases before) go and have a read. People really need to learn that law must be read in a full, wide, context, not just narrow passage you like and interpret the way you see fit.

Article 8 has exceptions which are routinely conveniently forgotten.

The interference must pursue a legitimate aim, such as those listed in the ECHR, including national security, public safety, economic well-being, preventing disorder or crime, protecting health or morals, and protecting the rights and freedoms of others.

Thus given that vouyerism and sexual harassment are actual crimes and that there's are sex based rights to privacy that apply along the lines of sex not gender - this matters and is a fair and legitimate aim for any situation which involves a potential state of undress.

Feel free to take it to court.

Except Article 8 of Convention of Human Rights explicitly protects my trans status, this was affirmed again in T.H. vs Czechia few weeks ago (and outright stated in GRA 2004) that transgender people have to right to keep their transition status private. The idea that we should just wear a pink triangle, or otherwise announce "I am trans" is in direct violation of both of those, literally as per T.H as that was one of the points Czechia was found in breach of.

Welcome to another episode of "what the law actually says" instead of what people have as a dream here but present as fact. But as you refuse to acknowledge this law with decades of enforcement, precedent and criminal penalties for breaching, why should we care about poorly written FWS judgment that's a civil law at most?

You shouldn't need to ask for a GRC. A GRC should be presented proactively by a law abiding citizen in this scenario to solve the issue.

If someone isn't abiding by the law then it's potentially not a civil issue - it's one about vouyerism and sexual harassment.

If someone doesn't have a GRC, then they aren't being unlawfully harassed now are they? Because they are the correct sex. Or they are breaking the law ) trying to break the law (see above point about offences). If someone is suspected of breaking the law, it gets dealt with appropriately and sensitively like any other number of issues. A centre that doesn't follow procedures in this scenario risks liability issues if someone complains. Self ID is not the law in the UK.

In the small number of cases where you might be in the process of trying to obtain a GRC, a simple dated doctor's note might be relevant and can be followed up if necessary.

As long as you are aware that a sizeable chunk of the female population are not comfortable with you in there, you are causing them stress and anxiety, and that it is against the law, then I guess it is between you and conscience how you act.

Few women are strong enough to challenge a man in an enclosed secluded space.

It’s very much a statement of your selfishness that you will act according to your own preferences and fuck over everyone else.

Can you explain how? Because as trans woman my documents state F. Do I need to lift my skirt? Or is this based on the "we can always tell" that gets tons of cis women misgendered on the regular?

As a trans woman you know your biological sex is and always was male.

If you take it on yourself to enter spaces, or use resources, reserved for biologically female people, you may not always be challenged.

That does not make it ok to deceive women and appropriate our resources.

Whether women always know or not, you always know. You always have the choice to treat women-only - which the SC confirmed means female-only - spaces with respect.

Every trans woman who, like you, knows this yet still considers what he wants from women to be more important than what we want for ourselves is demonstrating exactly why we are right to say no to you.

Women have all the experience in the world of men who believe if they can argue a logical case for our consent, or for why our boundaries are invalid, we are required to agree and acquiesce.

Those men fundamentally misunderstand their position.

Women are the sovereigns of our own bodies and our own boundaries. Our lack of consent is not a theoretical proposition you can argue away. It is our own to give or not and you have no moral power or right to compel it.

Only the most craven misogynist would consider his obligation to respect the consent of women depends on his accepting they have a valid case to withdraw it.

Hilarious how you think that a civil law could lead to a prison sentence. It cannot even lead to an arrest.

Now you asking to see random people to see a GRC, now that can actually get you arrested. Or harassing people in bathrooms, not to mention taking photos of other people in there.

You lot love the law so much, and yet openly ignore GRA 2004, and how it does indeed change my sex and/or gender (terms used in UK law interchangeably, with narrow exception of EqA2010 under FWS) for all intents and purposes.

This law you flat out deny because... Well, same bigotry as any other, copy/paste rthethoric used in favor of any segregation, ultimately if you are a person of color, just use the colored bathroom provided.

And for S28, it indeed did not mention transgender people, now if you actually had any interest in law from that time, not just did now 1 minute google you would realize why they were not mentioned. The answer is as simple and as obvious - before GRA 2004 transgender people did not exist as far as UK law is concerned.

Similar sad fate as nonbinary and intersex people suffer right now. Legal recognition is what we won in Goodwin 2002, implemented as GRA 2004. Before that we existed in your utopia of not being recognized by law... And still used the correct toilets.

This feels like it needs a short history lesson.

Transgender people always existed, with varying level of recognition in the law depending on time and space, from annihilation to just another person. We managed to exist in either of those environments.

In UK, even in depth of section 28, we continued to exist and live in out transition just fine, the only variable is amount of harassment we have to endure that's endorsed by the law.

And you think that completely unenforceable law (under which it's impossible to prove that you are cis btw), with no punitive measures, is going to somehow make transgender people to decide "yep, you right, we will give in to the few loud transphobes and stop existing as ourselves?"

You live in lala land, not reality, if you think that.

And the law on top of everything is temporary, the reading you want of FWS puts us entirely in the same position which resulted in Goodwin, and creation of trans rights. Except now there is even more precedence in ECHR for us.

See ya in the loos that apparently bother you so much.

Even if we couldn't tell it just takes a cheek swab to show you're a man.

A faster test apparently would be to ask you to show some respect and common decency.

The law is quite enforceable and deliberate flouting of it will eventually lead to a stay in a prison with other men and a free entry on the sexual offenders registry.

The law is the 2010 Equality act and will not be changing any time soon. I know some of you think it's a new law but you have been misled.

We've seen the laughable claims made by GLP and that amazingly ill-informed letter by the 33 MPs (oh how we laughed)

Demands that the EHRC change the law have been entertaining as well as revealing of the depths of ignorance involved.