"A woman who is trans"

I’ve been waiting years to find out what rights trans people apparently don’t have that all others do! Maybe today is the day?

The rights they don’t have, of course, are other people’s rights, specifically women’s rights afforded to them on the basis of their sex.

They’re men who just can’t believe that women haven’t rolled over and said ok, come on in fellas. They think bits of paper, changing letters on legal documents, their appearance, are all good enough to get what they want. Or in most cases the mere magic utterance of the words ‘I am a woman.’

Let’s face it, it doesn’t matter what any of these men do, even ‘Kaitlyn’ Jenner who has the money to snip, tuck, glow up to his hearts content. They’re all men, always. Now the Supreme Court has reminded them of this, not just annoying unkind women on Mumsnet.

Oh well, oh dear.

@TheKeatingFive very true. The judgement dealt with trans identified females on that point

They said you ‘may’ be excluded if your presence potentially caused distress.

Perhaps you have an over positive view on your ability to present as a female person?

Either way, if you undertook extreme body modification, why does society need to make special arrangements for your personal decisions ?

live and let live. As far as I understood it, a core claim of feminism was that gender and gender roles were social constructs imposed by the patriarchy. I find the biological determinism now being advocated to deny gender identities goes against idea the gender is a social construct.

I don't think the judgement does say that in relation to men.

The judgement and the EHRC draft guidance said we can be excluded from spaces for our sex. When do you think someone should be excluded?

If your decisions about undertaking elective extreme body modifications have left you in a situation where you might cause distress to people within your own sex category, why is it on society to make special provisions for your decisions?

If you are merely wearing clothes designed for female bodies, then I doubt you are excluded because you are non-conforming. There are numerous male people who wear non-conforming attire and still safely use the male single sex provisions.

But if it is an issue, I encourage you to start a campaign to welcome all male people into male single sex provisions. I believe that had this been done instead of ignoring women’s lack of consent, you would be much clearer on your safety by now.

Either way, you are a male person. If you want a special provision just to keep you safe, you need to campaign for it. Just as female people have always done.

You never had consent from female people to ever access public single sex provisions. Yet, it seems you didn’t even care to check

Yes you do. Males with a trans identity use male facilities and females with a trans identity use female facilities. Job done. Or they can use a mixed sex gender neutral facility.

Of course you have the right to your own sex based spaces. What makes you think you don't?

You don't have the right to opposite sex spaces of course. Why would you?

What rights do you think the poster is trying to remove?

Anyone posting about Article 8 should be posting about the restrictions to that right as well.
It is very often ignored.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

Article 8 protects your right to respect for your private and family life.

The EHRC link covers what this means. Including these restrictions:
Restrictions to the right to respect for your private and family life

There are situations when public authorities can interfere with your right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence. This is only allowed where the authority can show that its action is lawful, necessary and proportionate in order to:

protect national security
protect public safety
protect the economy
protect health or morals
prevent disorder or crime, or
protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

Action is ‘proportionate’ when it is appropriate and no more than necessary to address the problem concerned.

These restrictions keep getting missed out in the claims from people who claim male people have any ‘right’ to not disclose their sex when entering a female single sex provision. The ‘right’ to use single sex provisions remain as ‘sex’ based. No one in the UK has the right to privacy from the same sex when using single sex provisions. No one.

Thanks to the FWS judgement we don’t always have the right to a sex based space now.

so what rights do trans people not have that everyone else does?

The situation TRA claim they want - for services to be detetmined by the needs of each sex, and then for anyone with the PC of GR or with a GRC to use the service they feel more comfortable in, will never work.

It cant, because as soon as providers justify single sex services, including the opposite sex negates the legitimacy of the SSE.

Think of any subset of men to understand how bonkers it is. A service provides a changing room for women, but includes religious men, or disabled men, or gay men. How did they justify the need for a women only changing room in the first place?

I think TRA know this, and are pushing for their second favourite outcome- if they cant use womens spaces, they are going to ensure that women only spaces dont exist.

Hey! Just wanted to say that you have another gay male in the fight with you ladies for what it’s worth, I hate that you have to endure this nonsense!

Indeed. And if nobody's "changing sex" which appears to one of the current statements made by proponents of this incoherent ideology, then trans advocates can fuck right off gaslighting children that their bodies are flawed but a sex change could be the cure for them.

Exclude you from where? Supermarkets, hospitals, offices, gyms...? You are not excluded from those services. Which service providers do you think would exclude you?

If your definition of the word woman is the right one, then being a woman is nothing to do with being female and female-specific rights and provisions are none of your business.

@FlirtsWithRhinos I always wondered the same thing! If gender and sex are indeed separate things, if womanhood has nothing to do with the female sex class, as TRAs are wont to claim, then why are they so freaking obsessed with bulldozing our hard-won female sex based rights? This whole movement has more holes than swiss cheese.

The case you are referring to is Croft vs Royal Mail (2003) all the way up to the Court of Appeal, in which it was decided that Croft was not unreasonably treated when prohibited from using female toilets.

the judge send in passing that there might be occasion in future where a transexual might have completed a process that would permit the entry into a female point.

a comment in passing is called “obiter” and is not binding.

also the preceded the GRA, which also provided a section permitting discrimination on the grounds of sex under circumstances, such as privacy and dignity.

The Human rights article 8 also covers rights of privacy and dignity and gives domestic jurisdictions a wide interpretive role in rights of people, and sex based rights.

so no you are incorrect.

feel free to explore the law with me as it would be good to myth bust for you.

Can you explain what rights a male person has to
a) womens (female) rights
b) be in what should be a female only single sex space?

It’s a bit like ‘woman with a trans history’ which I’m sure most of us have seen on SM. They’re just trying to make the ‘trans’ bit sound like it’s not an integral part of the definition. I have actually seen a few of them say they are ‘a woman who happens to be trans’. Like it’s just a small extra detail- a mere coincidence. 😂

I recommmend you read more outside your current reading list if you don’t understand why. It is very easy.

Because the rights of female people is based on sex and should not be de-prioritised to include male people at all. There is no right for a male person to access the single sex provisions of female people. There never was.

In addition, any male person accessing a female single sex provision that is designed for safety, privacy and dignity is doing so without the consent of the female people who need that space. You seem to understand this if you have followed the cases. Yet you don’t understand the basics of consent at all.

Nor the rights at the foundation of those single sex provisions.

It's pretty obvious isn't it?

The thing you understand a woman to be is not - cannot - be the same thing as being a biological female.

So trying to appropriate the name, history, rights and opportunities of female people because you are a trans woman makes no sense.

If your definition of the word woman is the right one, then being a woman is nothing to do with being female and female-specific rights and provisions are none of your business.

And if my definition of the word woman is the right one, then being a woman is entirely to do with being female, and female-specific rights and provisions are still none of your business.

The only reason anyone gets confused about this is the weasel use of the word woman to mean something different to what it always did in culture, society, history and law, while insisting this new definition gives you rights over what was created by and for the people who met the old meaning.

The way out of this is simply to recognize that the thing you have labelled "womanhood" is a different thing to the thing female people are, stop trying to take by pressure and emotional manipulation what in reality was never anything to do with your "womanhood" anyway, and start to build something honest for yourselves and who you are instead.

and transexuals have never had the right to use opposite sex services
I don’t know if that’s actually true. I think there is pre-Equality Act case law that actually supported our access. IIRC the case Croft said there is a point where we should be allowed access to opposite sex spaces.

You are claiming "rights" that are not actually rights, but wishes - the wish to use opposite-sex facilities. This has never been your "right," so it can't be removed, only corrected.