Labour’s trans guidance ‘poses danger to women’

My philosophical belief is that what's mine is mine and what's yours is also mine, so I have the right to take and use for my own purposes whatever I know to be mine that happens to be in your possession.

This larcenous behaviour is protected in law because it is a philosophical belief.

I should think anyone with half a braincell can see that this is fallacious.

I'm having trouble understanding how something that must not be revealed is a philosophical believe.

How does someone who doesn't want anyone to know they're 'trans' claim to believe in 'trans' as a philosophy.
How do they live their life according to their philosophy if they won't admit they are 'trans', aren't they denying their own philosophy if they do.

It's not a philosophy it's a cult, and therefore not protected characteristic.

How is someone’s sex supposed to be proved? A man can walk into women’s toilets without changing their presentation at all and when challenged simply say my sex is female. What does anyone do about that?

Member of staff has a word, asks you to leave - no one is outed, you have just quietly been asked to leave

Member of staff has a word, asks you to leave - you kick off and start shouting about transphobia, you are responsible for outing yourself

Some TW who think they pass will be in for a rude awakening, I think. I do hope that there are enough Dreadful Middle-aged Women to go around all the toilets and changing rooms of the Nation.

Is the basis of the exclusion not knowledge of a person's actual sex but the fact that on balance they do not present as a woman?

Yes, the TRAs are correct that we organise society based on superficial appearance, but draw the wrong conclusion as to what this means for the definition of a woman.

They forget that most humans can quickly tell, on meeting another, exactly what external genitals they were born with. There's no need for faffing around unless people start adopting really elaborate sex-disguises.

TP would not be forcibly outed, they just think they will be. Maybe that's a philosophical belief? We all have eyes. And ears.
What is being 'sexually ambiguous'? Sounds like someone who doesn't know who they're attracted to? Does not sound like anything to do with dressing!!
Emily has outed themselves by using the nonsense that is CIS
(Yes I know what it means)

Per previous poster

It is not illegal sex discrimination to exclude from a women-only Schedule 3 service every person who looks like a man and this is indeed the informal basis on which such services always used to be run.

Is the basis of the exclusion not knowledge of a person's actual sex but the fact that on balance they do not present as a woman?

Will police footage of a person kicking off be sufficient evidence of male pattern behavior?

Well, one thing we know for sure, if they can try it, they will!

Kulturkampf: this is just the start.

They're the Pope: we're Bismarck. They impose mandatory unfalsifiable metaphysical beliefs on everyone: we stand for Enlightenment values.

I can't believe they managed to become the Establishment, and turned us into insurgents, in just a few decades.

Humans just love religious authoritarianism, I guess.

Sorry, I digress. Just saying, it's not enough to win court cases. But the wins in court make it easier to see the truth. And public attitudes have changed already.

Most likely they won't kick up the fuss there and then, but do it publicly and retrospectively.

The tack will be that most insidious of arguments - "Ok yes in this instance I am a trans woman" - (they won't say male but basically Yes Ok I am male) - " but you didn't know that for sure, so you could have been ejecting a cis woman, and that is why this is unworkable". In other words, the fact that a man has been ejected will be twisted as "proof" that women are at risk of being ejected.

This will be supported by a chorus line of useful idiot "allies" who actually are female trying to get themselves challenged in women's spaces then refusing to provide any simple proof of their sex to defuse the situation so they get ejected "for not being women" even though they are, and so can shout about it to all and sundry.

And to be clear, by any simple proof of their sex I obviously do not mean a physical display, just an undoctored driving license / passport if they have one or a simple doctors' letter / photo of their GRC if they don't, not because they have to carry such a thing but because knowing their sex is sometimes misread for their own convenience they may choose to, just as people with medical or other conditions that can trigger security questions often travel with suitable proof to quickly pass anticipated questions.

The above shouldn't need saying really, but we know how quickly some TRA minds jump to the idea of forced physical inspections <-- not envy

I think the risk for business is that after something bad happens, its established that they didn't do enough to keep men out.

If women have raised the alarm and they haven't taken action in the past, it doesnt matter what the gender identity of the perpetrator is, they've allowed men to enter womens spaces.

So business have to balance the risk of being known as 'inclusive' with the risk of something bad happening. It makes sense for the business to be seen as maintaining single sex spaces to the best of their ability.

Gosh, I’d love to do that pointy finger in the face thing back at India! “I AM A WOMAN!” he shouted, waving his finger in someone’s face.
“NO YOU ARE NOT”, I’d point back.

Let's hope the police remember their jobs. This has not been a given in recent years, as we all know.

Agreed, one of the best allies for this may be committed TRA themselves who need to make the point that they are going to ignore the legislation and advice.

I think we’re on the right track but it will take a while.

I am hoping (!) that a letter before action to the service provider might be enough in most cases, but if you complain in person (there is a man in the ladies changing room), and the staff do nothing, and you don't have proof (who's going to whip out their phone and photograph a man in the changing room and risk a broken phone, or worse), what's your letter going to say? All the provider has to say is "no there wasn't " and hope it doesn't become a regular thing.

I'm really not trying to be the voice of doom here. We have the law, we have the guidance, and if I'm in a situation when it really matters to me, I will certainly consider legal action. I just can't see how this is going to work in practice until every woman and every provider gets used to saying "no." How long will that take?

They risk a high profile court case where they look unhinged.

So, as a business owner, you get staff to frog-march the person off the site, hoping that they don't struggle so much that they claim injury and try to sue.
Then you have to deal with a couple of weeks worth of the activists mates picketing your business.
Finally you have months worth of bogus reviews turning up online.

I am guessing that most business will do all they can to avoid doing anything until some high profile (expensive) cases of indirect sex-discrimination wind their way through the courts.
What sort of penalties do businesses risk for indirect sex-discrimination?

Even with the legislation and the advice it is going to be an uphill struggle

Or is the sanction that you regularly get called out for using the wrong facilities and eventually move to the gender neutral facilities for a quiet life?

This. Or get banned from the gym/pub/whatever. Or provider gets sued for indirect sex-discrimination.

It really is a culture war. Some unsayable things need to get sayable.

In short, when Willoughby rocks up, it's OK to say 'you can't come in because you look like a man' and his only recourse is to go elsewhere, because he can't prove he's a woman.

Trying to work out if the advice has any teeth.

If Willoughby refuses to to leave, is the escalation route for either party (or both parties) to then get the police involved? One party claiming 'transphobia' the other party claiming illegal use of a single sex space?
Does something like this ever get to court?
Or is the sanction that you regularly get called out for using the wrong facilities and eventually move to the gender neutral facilities for a quiet life?