Labour’s trans guidance ‘poses danger to women’

It's very simple. People with penises, however they ID, must stay out of spaces, places, refuges, sports, changing rooms and toilets, prisons and sleeping places which are designated for biological women (there isn't another kind of woman so all of above should be simplicity itself).

Imagine if I had a club for Polish people - permitted by the EA2010. And there was a cohort of people who weren't Polish, but were desperate to be Polish, and they managed to convince a section of society that the knowledge of whether they actually were, or were not Polish was of such a sensitive nature as to need to be hidden and never acknowledged.

Then some not-from-Poland-but-wanting-to-be-Polish people come to my club for Polish people and tell me that I can't tell if they're Polish or not, and that I'm forbidden to actually ask if they're Polish, because of how upset they'll be if anyone finds out they're not Polish.

Make it make sense. You can't.

I have been asking this question for years. I’ve never seen an answer that makes sense, and I suspect there isn’t one.

GR is the only protected characteristic that depends on the holder’s desire to successfully conceal another protected characteristic that they hold. It’s bizarre.

Good for the Pope! The difference is that, unlike in 19th Century Prussia, the Pope cannot impose his beliefs by rule of law, for example by decreeing that all Irish people must be sex realist. The difference between them and us isn’t that they are wrong and we are right, but that they are authoritarian and we are liberal. We don't mind them having their beliefs, as long as we are not forced to join in.

Unfortunately, reinstating secular pluralism in this area may involve some trashing of their beliefs. But they are pants, so...

In fairness, I have to point out that the Pope is actually thoroughly GC, so on this topic, the Pope is on our side🙃

Unusually amongst the major Christian churches [I think] the Catholic church opposes transgenderism, gender reassignment surgery, surrogacy, as well as violence against women, sexual abuse, human trafficking, assisted suicide, abortion etc. on the basis that they are injurious to the dignity of the human being as created by God.
Declaration “Dignitas Infinita” on Human Dignity (2 April 2024)

I'm an atheist, so I'm just sayin'

I agree, I think all forms who have the gender question should be made to have a Not Applicable box to tick, may be then they'll get the message.

This is so true. As women, I think we are all able to suss out someone's sex, however well they think they "pass".
I was watching "Monsieur Spade" last night and the actor in that series set off my feeling of unease as to whether the woman he was playing was genuinely a woman, so eventually I googled and discovered that "she" was in fact Rebecca Root, a transwoman. He "passes" quite well, but there was just something about him that made me wonder and feel uncomfortable, and when I found out I felt conned.
So yes, most people do not have the ability to hide their sex - it can usually be easily, or not so easily observed.

I get offended every time I've asked for my gender as if it is sex. It is not sex and I don't believe in gender.

Now wondering if they just meant you don't have to stand at the door of the loos and ask everyone going in what sex they are because you trust them to follow the rules.

Not that you can't ask questions if they go into what's clearly the wrong facility.

It's a good thread. The belief argument didn't really go anywhere, because it was just a proxy for the 'outing' issue. But the debate about that was fruitful, because we concluded that people will only get outed if they try to do what they aren't legally entitled to, which they therefore shouldn't bother with in the first place. 'I was outed as a thief because the security guard followed me instead of just ignoring me.'

I think these are two different onuses (onera?). The provider has an onus to ensure single-sex only use, in order to avoid indirect sex discrimination against female users. If an individual seeks access on the basis that their exclusion would be illegal discrimination as to gender reassignment, the onus is on them to prove their (female) sex.

I honestly don't know how that quote got there after I had carefully deleted most of the post to which I was replying. Sorry.

Also, yes, sorry Chaibiscuits, as you say, it is about a bunch of people that "them" was being used. I think my problem may have been that I simply didn't believe in that plurality.

Shortshriftandlethal
The woman ( in the swimming pool changing room) was just aggressive and prejudiced.

Also ignorant. Men have nipples too. So not having them doesn't instantly suggest "man!"

As has been said before on many threads, it is quite obvious that the onus isn't on the providers but on users.

I'm fairly sure we've had advice on various threads from people who say they are legal bods, that the onus is on the providers. If you want to take legal action for harassment, for example, you sue the service provider. Perhaps someone else legal can clarify?

Anyway, I thought the discussion was going well, but I guess that's all in the eye of the beholder.

They is being used a plural here 🙄

It's tedious, isn't it? 99.9% of the time it's someone who's either a gnc man or a transwoman. You don't need to know which, and he hasn't got any proof he's female, so nobody gets outed. He says he left it in his other handbag and buggers off to the gender-neutral facilities. If they're genuinely female but look male, they're a transman, or have unusual physiology. You don't need to know which, and she has got proof she's female, so nobody gets outed. If it's a unicorn man who passes, he doesn't get challenged in the first place.

Why such snowflakes??

EmilyinEverton
There have been numerous incidents reported in the media of cis women being heckled, wrestled & demanded they leave public toilets for being men

(citation needed)

I can find examples of transwomen being asked to leave ladies' lavatories, but I haven't found an example of a woman being "heckled, wrestled & demanded she leave" (not "they" if it is a woman we are talking about).

But if the member of staff does not know the person is trans, as it has not been disclosed, how can they be guilty of transphobia. Tge member of staff could just say they didn’t know the person was trans, just that they were the wrong sex for the facility. The only way the trans person could claim transphobia is if they, as Emily puts it, “outed themselves” by claiming transphobia.

Claiming that asking someone’s sex is invalid as it might reveal that they have a GI is as ridiculous as trying to argue that requesting someone’s dietary restrictions isn’t permitted as it could reveal someone’s religious beliefs.

EmilyinEverton
A good many people would be offended/upset that their sex wasn't obvious & regardless whether that's unreasonable doesn't change the fact they would be offended/upset.

I think someone being offended and/or upset and someone being the victim of sexual assault are in a completely different category of seriousness.

Also, I am reasonably sure that what might offend or upset these people is not that their sex isn't obvious, but that it is.

"Men are afraid women will laugh at them; women are afraid men will kill them."

Are you able to produce any examples of this? Accredited ones, it has to be, because you've been mistaken about so many facts so far that your unsupported word isn't really enough.

I wear jeans as a general rule, have a deep voice, and apparently don't mince like a Proper Laydee, and during the past fifty-plus years have occasionally been told (always by men trying to be helpful to or protective of women) "oy, mate, the gents is over here" as I go towards the ladies – in a pub for instance. I turn, I smile, he says "oops, sorry, love", and that's the extent of the harassment.

I have never during those years come across a single instance of any ordinary (if "sexually ambiguous", which presumably means wearing jeans, having a deep voice and failing to mince in the accepted manner) female person being harassed by women in a ladies lavatory. Not one single time. I can only assume women don't: if in doubt, they say nowt.

Maybe jazz pubs and folk clubs and other music venues are less damn silly than the imaginations of trans apologists.