Good Law Project to report Sex Matters over 'deviant' remark

The equality act has been in place since 2010 where effectively 'woman' was not defined till 2025 & yet there hasn't been an uptick in trans women's violence in public toilets.

Perhaps you're unaware that one the fastest growing porn genres is transwomen in women's toilets wielding various weapons including their penises.

And since transwomen have also taken to social media to threaten women constantly with beheading, beating and rape, your claim is pointless.

Men constitute the predator class, and transwomen conform entirely, if not more so than non TIMs, to male pattern violence. It's not the winning argument you think it is that all the predators in the male sex class should be able to access vulnerable women just because most of the time they confine their killing and raping to their partners.

Yes it is. It’s used for an adult human female, but also used by some men to allow them access to female spaces for whatever their reason, nefarious or just predatory.

unfortunately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society are classified basically by sex. Very rarely are the gender identities of the perpetrators discussed or recorded. So you are describing a set of people based on their biological basis, and then wanting to use these statistics to prove something for gender identity. But the two are unrelated.

Until all people are properly educated in gender identity theory and have it recorded next to their crimes I don’t think it’s a useful comparison. Where are the statistics on agender or pan gender criminals? Are gender fluid people more likely to be violent when identifying as male or female?

Most victims of violence are not able to discuss gender identity with their attacker and rely on biological facts to describe them to the police. Very rarely does the attacker ask for their gender identity first too. This goes for both male and female victims of violence.

How can human rights apply to something we are unable to see or measure, which is completely unrelated to how violence is effected, experienced or recorded?

I hear you, but the problem is where 'needs' apply isn't uniform so the material context matters. The overwhelming amount of male violence occurs in very particular settings as in the perpetrator is known to the victim & occurs in their home when they are alone hence we don't require sex segregation in employment spaces, restaurants bars, cafes etc.

The equality act has been in place since 2010 where effectively 'woman' was not defined till 2025 & yet there hasn't been an uptick in trans women's violence in public toilets. It's only in the last few years that this has become a pressing issue without any increases noted despite the growing trans population, widespread grass roots complaints or consistency in female discontent because of a huge generational divide.

If its material evidence that justifies how society should be organised then you kind of need it that often irrelevant oversimplifications don't necessarily qualify as.

But notions of human rights etc aren't plucked from the air. The particular rights required arise from needs. And one of the major origins of needs is bodily physical realities.

So if you have accepted the concept of human rights at all (that's the separate philosophical "ought" bit), the realities of human embodiment immediately set up some fairly obvious specific "oughts". Like allowing for people to sleep, eat, drink, and not be physically damaged or killed just because somebody feels like doing it.

One can quibble about details of implementation ( the appropriate length of a working day, for example), but if human rights are to be fit for purpose, physical realities can't be just dismissed.

Rights based on the bodily needs of women and men respectively are just a subset of this, and no different. If human rights are a thing, then for example recognition that one category of human (though not the other) is vulnerable to enforced pregnancy and needs protection from that, is just another "ought" based on a verifiable fact.

More than 99.9% of babies have their sex accurately observed at birth. Fewer than 0.018% have a developmental difference that leads to their sex being ambiguous in any way. Even in these rare instances, science informs us as to whether they are biologically male or female.

The only people suggesting that a person’s sex is complicated are those seeking to legitimise deviant behaviour, such as using single sex provision for the opposite sex. They know very well which sex they are. In the case of transwomen, they know they are male as this is one of two essential criteria for being a transwoman.

A more honest argument would be to present the case as to why some males should be permitted to use female only provision and why. This doesn’t happen because many, perhaps most, transwoman find any acknowledgment of them being male morally injurious and can’t tolerate it - so go all out to avoid it.

I’ve no interest in discussing single sex provision with people who don’t accept a starting point of people knowing which biological sex they are and that this is not complicated. It’s futile.

Absolutely. But transgender and queer theorists argue that human rights, dignity and legal protections are matters of social negotiation and value—not objective deductions from the natural world. By treating sex as a fundamental "ought" that dictates human rights, GC frameworks conflate descriptive biology with human moral frameworks.

OK, let's play it your way:

We are told repeatedly, in a hectoring, moralising manner, that "Trans people exist!"

So what? An is is not an ought.

Thank you for informing us all that you don't know that an is is not an ought.

May I suggest a rudimentary course in philosophy 101 to correct this deeply flawed reasoning?

Biology is a fact not an ideology. Don't be so silly.

Woman is one of the most exploited words there is right now.

Uh huh, biological essentialists just like any other ideology has a barrow to push.

Woman is one of the most exploited words there is right now. And we are over it.

Deviant is a perfectly adequate word to describe men going into single sex spaces designed for the opposite sex. However deviantly they are using the word woman to justify themselves.

Thanks for the expected cynical 'interpretation'. But that's unrelated to the point being made which wasn't that words don't have broad meanings rather some words are commonly socially interchangeable with other words despite their broader meanings & are shrewdly employed to provide plausible deniability.

'Woman' isn't exploited in such a way.

So the common understanding of the word "woman", or any other word, depends on how nefarious the context of usage implies it is?
Right...

Did you actually read that?

I'm glad it is there for all to see.
No one has to reinterprete your words to see just how batshit that is.

The main consequence of a service provider allowing somebody to use an opposite sex facility would be that they wouldn't be able to rely on the Equality Act single sex exemptions that allow discrimination, so the facility would just be mixed sex.

But surely the main consequence of a service provider allowing somebody to use an opposite sex facility would be that they would leave themselves wide open to be sued, with no effective defence?

But there is a difference between civil law and criminal law.

There is no specific criminal law that says you can't use an opposite sex toilet. There are just laws that allow you to be excluded and other laws that might come into effect if you resisted exclusion.

The main consequence of a service provider allowing somebody to use an opposite sex facility would be that they wouldn't be able to rely on the Equality Act single sex exemptions that allow discrimination, so the facility would just be mixed sex.

Whether or not they would be complying with other regulations would be another matter, but it is not yet clear what a court would decide.

Yes, I think that this is exactly the case.

I think disapproval from other men will be crucial. My DH says he was never explicitly told why he shouldn't enter a women's space but the idea that it was a completely unacceptable thing to even think about doing was modelled to him by adult males from a young age.

Woman are not to be shamed for wanting their own spaces and resources. The men who try to cross their boundaries are to be shamed. #shamehastochangesides

I imagine that Sex Matters have been very careful about choosing the word 'deviant' rather than 'illegal' because they have access to excellent equaliites law lawyers. GLP would be more likely to have a case against them if they used the word 'illegal'. With 'deviant' he will get nowhere.
I think that you have misunderstood the law in this area, but IANAL so I'm not going to pontificate further.

This whole thread has been interesting, especially the 'illegal' vs. 'deviant' discussion. Joyce has alluded to this multiple times and has clearly thought deeply about it and discussed it generally at Sex Matters.

A major argument against the EHRC guidance has been that it's unenforcible. Joyce (and others at SMs) have made the point that enforceability is not the primary concern of drafted law and regulation. That drafters assume people will comply out of civic responsibility, living as they do in a society that's governed by law. That's in fact how laws work in practice - by social force. That force, however isn't just altruism, it also works through stigma - flagrant, selfish lawbreaking is stigmatised: even if you don't agree with a law, even if you're unlikely to be taken to court for violating it, even if you're selfish and non-altruistic, you're still most likely subject to shame and fear of being stigmatised as an anti-social scoff-law.

By noting the behaviour is deviant (not just potentially illegal sexual harassment), SM is underlining that men entering women's toilets or supporters advocating for men to enter women's toilets (GLP & TRAs) ought to be stigmatised. SM is trying to build the social force necessary to make the regulation effective. It' will take time, but I think public sentiment is such that compliance will build.

The GLP's efforts to publicise the word may well, in the short term, galvanising the non-compliance faction of TRAs, but I think it actually works to SM's objectives of motivating social force in the long term. After all the GLP is essentially complaining that SM is stigmatising them, and they're right if you follow the logic, the implication is that GLP should be stigmatised! SM is isn't allowed to make that connection by name (being a charity) but GLP is making that connection for them amping up social media publicity. And it seems unlikely that the Charity Commission will come to the GLP's defence and bail them out of their self-designation.

One wonders if there isn't an aspect of SM waving around the red cape of a matador. Maybe more people should take the suggestion of donating to the GLP seriously.

A Telegraph article on Sarah Phillimore's lawsuit against the fox basher has just dropped. Following more recent publicity for the case.
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5511121-glp-are-going-after-sarah-phillimore-and-are-going-to-lose-part-two?page=16

The recent actions by GLP need to be put in that context. They are panicking.

charged with another crime!

I think perhaps you need to remember that "deviant" can be either a noun (in which case it often does mean a person whose sexual behaviour is unacceptable in some way) or an adjective. The latter is how it was used in the sentence under discussion, and as an adjective it means "different from the norm or the socially acceptable", not "sexually a bit strange and unpleasant."

That a woman was wearing trousers would have been described as "deviant" not so long ago. I doubt this was because it was pervy, when it was being done for instance for safety at work – landgirls wore trousers because skirts getting caught in farm machinery would be dangerous, but at the time their wearing trousers was described as deviant, as in deviating from the accepted norm. And a planet with an irregular orbit, such as Pluto (if that is still a planet, I lose touch) is described as deviant.

Some people just do have to drag sex into everything, though, as the fox-botherer demonstrates.

And in the matter of women claiming that all transwomen are sexual deviants and all the rest of it, that's garbage too because they don't. What they patiently explain over and over and over again for the hard of thinking is that sexually perverse or downright criminal men can and do use trans women as a stalking horse to get them access to little girls and naked women – a practice which every transwoman I know (a fair few) would condemn as both horrible behaviour and not at all good for the real trans people.

In fact I feel that we should call such opportunistic perverts "fake trans" to make it clear they are men pretending to be transwomen in order to gain licence to behave in a repugnant way.