I will protect trans people in single-sex spaces row, new human rights chair says

I don't think she is being vague. She is being concillatory towards the government process, as laborious and unnecessary as it may be.

She stuck her neck out during the committee stage, and had most of the committee rally against her...but the government went ahead with her appointment, anyway.

Yes, she does....that headline is wilfully emotive and distorted. She is very clear about sex based rights, but is also responsiible for all equalities.

Exactly. Things became impossible to resolve properly the day the concept of wanting, pretending or believing yourself to be something you’re not was given any credence in law, because it can’t be distinguished from faking it and it harms the rights of the group you’re imitating. Even if it wasn’t also about safety and dignity , if you take anything that is for a group you don’t belong to, someone in that group loses out. But with sex categories the safety and dignity argument is overwhelming too.

And it’s anomalous as this doesn’t and wouldn’t happen with ethnicity, disability, age, height etc - even though they are more spectrum-like than sex is and in some cases harder to prove, we understand the need for proof even if it’s not always a perfect system.

Trans-identifying people still do have rights and protections though - I don’t think it’s ok to assault someone because they think they’re not the sex they are, they should be kept safe in prison, they deserve the relevant medical care for their sex and for the complications arising from SRS and hormones. But there should be no right to require anyone else socially or legally to join in the pretence. And there are trans people who understand and manage this fine.

In fact, technically I think if trans people were or are given the right to claim to be something they’re not in law, and to force others to comply, as is happening in some places, that’s discrimination against everyone else, who face prosecution for fraud if they fake their identity or physical attributes to get access to a different group’s rights.

But women are the only ones who've had rights taken away. They were reinforced by the SC judgement but people seem to be doing their hardest to avoid implementing the law.

I imagine there will be lots of "be kind" nonsense to be spouted again.

And the TRAs sure do love that Denton’s document, which tells them not to be honest about what they want as the truth about their requests is ugly; and normies would be horrified.

She has to appear to be fighting for BOTH transpeople and women. That's her job.

She can not change the law.

The EHRC previously had guidance which was bollocks and it took the supreme court decision to review it.

If she comes up with illegal bollocks for guidance, it WILL get challenged in court.

She can therefore only do what is within the limits of the law.

But we could see the end of single sex spaces and having to fight for them all over again using health and safety, direct discrimination and the indirect discrimination routes...

So TRAs will have to explain why third spaces are unacceptable. That TIMs don't really feel scared being in with the other men, they want to be in with the women for validation, or in some cases for other, even less acceptable reasons. And they don't want single occupancy facilities that both sexes can use, they want to be in a women's space with women in it.

If the code of practice ever gets released, third spaces is the route that many organisations will go down.

My own large employer has single occupancy gender neutral facilities alongside single sex and accessible ones, but people (men) are still using the facilities for the opposite sex because the policy, which hasn't been updated yet, allows it.

Third spaces, if it is practical for the business or service, are a reasonable solution. And all the allies can use them too so there will be no "outing". We know TRAs hate them because it means compromising and considering other people's rights, but the BBC won't be able to do pity pieces about trans people having no facilities to use when there are solutions in place.

She said it was “important to make sure that there are services provided for people who can’t or don’t want to use the services for their biological sex. It is about recognising that everybody has rights in this situation, but where you are providing single-sex services, the supreme court has said those have to be on the basis of biological sex.”

From the Guardian report of the same interview. Seems clear to me, and explains why TransActual think she's against inclusivity. (They think it means forcing women to share with men: she thinks it means not forcing men to share with men if they don't want to.)

I’d like to see some actual figures of how many trans identified men (while being gussied up) have been assaulted, etc, while using the men’s room. 🤨
Cos, I reckon it’s a big fat zero.

They are already safe in their own single sex spaces, if anything happens do what women have always had to do and call the police. At least they will get someone showing up.

The GRA says that one group should be treated as if they are female, or at least that they aren't male. But the difference is only what they claim to feel.

I think this is the root of the problem - the GRA doesn't make sense in any way, but particularly in the context of equality legislation.

What is the legal context for treating somebody differently because they are male or female that has nothing to do with sex?

The problems are the GRA and PC of GR, not toilets and changing rooms.

What is different between men with a gender identity and men without? The GRA says that one group should be treated as if they are female, or at least that they aren't male. But the difference is only what they claim to feel.

At best, policy makers are basically trying to make it make sense, more likely creating work for themselves.

Seems like MAS is going to advocate for third spaces. We know how much TRAs love that solution

Exactly, the solution is pointless and just a waste of time and money.

Seems like MAS is going to advocate for third spaces. We know how much TRAs love that solution.

Nor do I. New Years resolution - I'm not going to pretend to care about them and their 'struggles', Women and Children first, anyone else a long second.

I have some sympathy regarding this. Had the government of the time not ignored the issue, it would not have needed the Supreme Court decision, and the number of people born male but using or wishing to use female spaces would by now be far less. Perhaps the row would be less.

Third spaces I support.

I don't see the problem, with the interview, the article, or the headline. I wonder if some of you are reading the headline as saying "I will protect trans people in single-sex spaces"? What it actually says is that she will protect them in the row about single-sex spaces. This is just a headline-speak condensation of her statements to the effect that the EHRC will be acting for the rights of all protected groups. The very fact that, as she says, the guidance is 'legally sound' in its exclusion of people from opposite-sex spaces entails a need to ensure that trans people are adequately catered for in some other way. She is simply acknowledging this
Who would want her to say anything different?

100%! Stuff them.

Happy new year 😁

I am optimistic overall, because IME reality has a way of outlasting whatever woo comes along and the more harmful and ludicrous the woo, the more sure it is to come and go. I am 100% sure it will go.

But it is a really stubborn and successful load of woo, and I am also repeatedly shocked and stunned by how gullible and misogynist so many people have been, and how long it’s taking for the bleeding obvious to sink in. So I can totally understand feeling cynical and despairing too and I often do.

I wish I had your optimism. But after the shock and let down that is Briggite Phillipson, it's 'once bitten twice shy', to me. I genuinely would not be surprised if Stephenson turned out to be a sleeper for TRAs, as well. Nothing would surprise me. Some are naive, but I'm jaded and expect nothing good from her, sadly. Nothing would make me happier though to be wrong, of course. Pray and wish that I'm wrong for me.

ETA: sorry, I meant to quote-reply to @WhatterySquash , my apologies.

I think it’s more that she’s being specific on purpose, because it’s important that she does understand and protect everyone’s rights, and she needs to make that clear as well as actually doing it, because of the propaganda that protecting sex-based rights is “taking something away” from trans people.

The reason “trans rights” is vague is because it’s been so successfully lied about and so many people misunderstand what it means. I wish the government would stand up and spell this out. And any organisation that provided “training” and materials that lied to employers and institutions about what rights trans people have should be prosecuted or at the very least disbanded and made to pay back any money they charged for spreading lies.

To transpeople, their rights and no more.
To women, our rights and no less.

I'd be a big fan of trans people getting exactly the rights that are specified for them according to the law.

I've not read the article.

I may get deleted for this but i do not give an actual flying fuck about trans peoples rights because they do not give a shiny shit about women.

As in transvestites can use the mens in complete safety. All for it though not womens problem. Or masculinised women are not mistaken as men in the ladies.