Labour’s trans guidance ‘poses danger to women’

It is, as one of my closest (male) confidants said after taking a look at the 300 page guidance, "a bloody useless mess that needs to be sorted!". My response? No shit sherlock, and a lot of women are doing their very best.

My sincere worry is that it won't be enough, soon enough, to stop a woman from being assaulted somewhere because she says no, knowing it is her right to do so. A lot of men who would try to get into women's spaces are not the most stable of individuals, as we have seen.

Some posters have suggested that the woman instead speak to the provider, which would be much more sensible, but, selfishly, I want men to have to get used to hearing the word no.

Exactly. It's not a right to use the service; it's a right not to be illegally excluded from it (and not to be treated unfavourably by the failure to provide an alternative).

It's poorly explained, and not helped by the waffle about asking for proof. That makes it sound like the onus is on the provider.

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.

As has been said by people "in the know" on MN (not me), the onus is on the individual to prove their status/right to use the service, not on the provider to prove s/he can't. (Please someone do step in if this is not correct)

However, in reality, this is predicated on said individual bring reasonable. Would Willoughby be reasonable if told no, or asked to prove his sex? His other recourse could be to kick up a fuss, or worse, so I hope providers are prepared for that. (They won't be, so they will cave, and then it will be for women, yet again, to sue the provider). Why would a provider get involved until they have to, when they know that most women won't have the resources to sue them?

This all assumes that the provider knows that the onus is on the individual.

I looked at S13, S29, and Schedule 3 Part 7, and I'm by no means convinced that anyone needs to prove their sex in order to obtain something that they are legally entitled to in relation to a Schedule 3 service, unless they are a transman relying on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

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.

Of all the people who look like men...

all the actual men (including transwomen) must be excluded to retain the Schedule 3 exemption. They don't have proof they're female, obviously, and...

it is illegal discrimination, as to gender reassignment, to exclude a transman from a women-only Schedule 3 service unless exclusion is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. The worked example is a rape support service, which I think sets rather a high bar, but this seems unlikely to be a real world problem because IME transmen are not unreasonable bastards would self-exclude anyway if their presence was unwelcome.

That only leaves legal females who look male because, for example, they have an XY DSD. Their legal position is unchanged by FWS and is not wholly satisfactory (transmen have protection that they do not, for instance). But at least they can prove their sex, which may be a solution in many situations (to a problem they'll have grappled with their whole life, completely independently of the trans issue).

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. But no-one will force him to reveal any information about himself at all.

Of course, there will be men who are emboldened by the conflicting advice. It's bloody dangerous, and it's going to be become very obvious.

Datun, If the guidance weren't so long-winded, but short, with clear bullet points, more people would read it and be clearer about their rights and responsibilities, especially service providers.

I understand that they were trying to be comprehensive, so that providers would have something to fall back on, but that is what the law is for. But service providers will not read 300 pages of guidance. They'll wait until someone complains, then try to work out what to do.

I do worry that it will only become clear to everyone when a man assaults a woman or any employee of a provider when they challenge him, because, as you mentioned, some men are very entitled and just can't help themselves.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that!

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

This tends to be mainly confined to known activists, Stonewall employees and the wives of activist former barristers with unacceptable attitudes towards fox welfare (actually there may only be one if these)

It’s almost like it doesn’t happen to normal women….

The solution to that is for people, especially men who like to think they are women, to keep out of wrong sex facilities ie the ladies.

Then no one will challenge them.

Your claim that no one can be asked about sex because of a potential knock on effect on belief in ‘gender identity’ is spurious and extremely tenuous.

Is Emily test driving the next Stonewall policy document?

Quite.

And the law is still that men can't come in.

It's an increasingly bizarre exercise in circular thinking, with arguments counteracting previous arguments that are no longer palatable, because reasons, which all come back to one, simple point: there is nothing to it except circular arguments and obfuscation because you can't actually force people to believe you are what you say you are. And other people have the right to not believe you.

The onus is on the person in question to prove this, and the service provider does not have to let them. They can be redirected to the gender neutral facility. So no actual need to 'prove',

Yes! Thank you, I remember now. The Supreme Court were fairly water tight with everything they looked at. Hence transmen looking too male. You can actually bar people, even if they are the right sex.

You can just say you look like a bloke to me, off you trot. And if he says he's a woman, you can say I don't think you are, off you trot again.

Plus, I don't think there is any restriction on the general public asking about the sex of a man in a female space, is there?

Service users can say I think you're a man, or are you a man? Is that correct, they are not bound by GDPR, and special categories.

Of course, there will be men who are emboldened by the conflicting advice. It's bloody dangerous, and it's going to be become very obvious. TRAs won't be able to help themselves. They will be bulldozing their way in clutching their laminated card of responses, before you can say plunging neckline.

Also, if it's only a special category for trans people, how do you identify they're trans in order to provide them with the special category? 😁

Honestly, the entire concept of logic get gets annihilated by this ideology

I would hazard a guess that whoever signed off on this particular amendment is an activist.

Yes, she's trying it on and digging in, isn't she? I'd be very interested to know why she seems to feel that this is her hill to die on. It wouldn't win her enough future votes to run for School Governor, let alone leader or PM.

Emily, my philosophical belief is Reality, and I would expect everyone to respect my beliefs and not ask me any questions that might "out" my understanding of Reality.

The word and logic twisting will gather pace now that the activists have run out of road. In the end, it will be all they have left, and they will be arguing only with each other, because everyone else will focus on reality and won't have to pay the activists any attention at all anymore.

And I will be overjoyed to not have to discuss this subject ever again!

I have a real problem with that Guardian article as it doesn’t show what’s going on for women and children in reality.

Obviously, the Good Law Project is involved in some way or other. They don’t understand design and how it affects safety and health.

Their ultimate aim seems to be to enclose us all in private cubicles or rooms within mixed sex areas.

In the Keeping Children Safe in Education consultation: “Contrary to how the guidance is framed, schools are under no obligation to provide any single-sex facilities whatsoever. It would be entirely lawful and legitimate for a school to provide toilet and changing facilities entirely in self-enclosed lockable rooms, designed for use by one pupil at a time. Indeed, where this is practicable, this may be the most sophisticated way of addressing the needs of all pupils. The guidance should make this clear”.

That above is wrong, dangerous, and implies schools have the space and money to do this.

I think the trans ideology movement will eat itself eventually, the way communism did in the USSR.

Stonewall is already morphing the cause to Trans+

I think people like Emily should be aware of this, and jump on the train quickly, because LGBTQIA+ is leaving the station. I am vaguely interested in seeing what Stonewall dictats are issued in the coming months.

I always want to ask people like @EmilyinEverton

What do you think women should do if they experience a man in their legally single sex space?

Suck it up so they don't offend anyone?

Before trans right activism we had high trust around toilets etc. They didn't need policing we trusted everyone would stick to the rules and so masculine looking women were probably unlikely to be challenged as the default presumption was if in the women's they were probably women.

Unfortunately because of trans activism we no longer have high trust and we can no longer trust that masculine looking people have a right to be in the womens. So there may be more challenges to masculine looking women than before but that's because of the men who have and continue to undermine trust in the safety of single sex spaces.

Saying that any women challenged it would usually take 3 seconds to realise she is a women anyway.

Emily seems to think women shouldn't demand single sex spaces if it occasionally causes some awkwardness.

But if organisations can’t record sex, how can they ensure there is no sex-based discrimination? Same applies for gender identity.

Gender identity (where someone has one) shouldn’t be some dirty little secret. The law says clearly that transwomen are NOT women, so nobody should be pretending that they are. Transwomen have their own needs including protection from discrimination.