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

Not according to Justice Swift.

Because Justice Swift said this would depend on the facts of the case as to whether there was “less favourable treatment".

100%

For that reason i think it would be counterproductive to get him labelled as a vexatious complainant at this stage. Unlike some of the other legal idiots JM’s establishment links seem to help with wide distribution of his activities, which is very helpful for spreading sunlight.

Hell I’m sometimes tempted to donate to his crowdfunding with all the unintentional good results he gets for the GC side to make sure he keeps going!! Binding case law was a superb outcome of the JR against the EHRC 😊

What wonders might come out of this complaint about the use of the word “deviant” in an appropriate mathematical usage? Why draw attention to that word and attach it to his negative interpretation? Far more people will become aware of it than if he’d said nothing. The man must be a dedicated follower of Barbara Streisand 🤣

Yes, misogyny thrives everywhere, including in the hands of policymakers.

Take it up with the TIMs online, threatening to kill, maim, batter and rape women.

In fact in France its largely unisex facilities that dominate.

This hasn't been my experience, but leaving that aside, it's still the same choice - a facility can be for both sexes (mixed sex), either sex (unisex) or single sex.

You can argue for any of these options if you want, and other people can argue for single sex services.

What you can't argue for is a single sex service that can be used by both sexes, because that is not possible.

Michael Foran has presented a strong argument that it would amount to discrimination against non-trans identified men.

Depending on the context it might qualify as indirect discrimination.

The philosophy matters here because values shape whether the evidence in question is relevant to the prevailing cultural expectations. Many western countries don't consider that male violence requires the exclusion of trans people. In fact in France its largely unisex facilities that dominate. The fact there's no cross cultural expectations in other countries shows how materialism isn't the only thing that influences policy.

No one is talking about “every” setting
We are all clear that “sometimes” sex matters
Keep up

Yet he still didn't go as far as saying that the EHRC were wrong and that it would be possible to rely on the single sex exemptions if some men were allowed to use a service purporting to be for women.

And you would still have the practical problem of explaining who would be excluded.

Again, your choices come back to single sex or mixed sex.

He noted there is scope for a strong argument that allowing a trans woman to use a female facility does not automatically amount to unlawful discrimination against biological men.

The corollary is that allowing a trans woman i.e. a biological man to use a female facility automatically amounts to unlawful discrimination against biological women.

That’s a useful list and the choice of the word “deviant” makes even more sense knowing that Helen Joyce is a mathematician

Ooh I would like to see that argument in court. How can one argue that dogs men are allowed in and some not? Surely not allowing sons men in on the basis of their gender identity is discrimination? As we are told “cis” is a gender, surely banning men from spaces on the basis of their gender is illegal?

According to Justice Swift's findings int he recent GLP EHRC case he stated that while accepting it could theoretically be direct discrimination to exclude a man from a women's facility, it depends on the facts of the case. He noted there is scope for a strong argument that allowing a trans woman to use a female facility does not automatically amount to unlawful discrimination against biological men.

I'd certainly be interested to hear those arguments!

So if you want to argue that male violence is not a problem and that there should be more mixed sex toilet provision you should certainly campaign for that.

But if TIM are at risk in male facilities as they claim, surely mixed sex facilities would be just as dangerous, as the men they are so afraid of would also be using those facilities?

@Baileyonice

Why do you think female only spaces exist in the first place?

They think that women not complaining is a win.

BIG BIG mistake. They don't understand the sexual difference in complaint culture. Upset a man and he might kick off right there and then. Then they will forget about it.

Many women do not like direct confrontation. Instead they will take notes and do something about it later when they have gathered support. There are biological and social reasons for this.

All these men in dresses going around thinking they are kings and treating women like dirt are finding out building up resentment amongst women is a bad idea. It isn't even a good idea in a full on sexist society let alone in the UK where there are a LOT of women with careers and power.

Women are not going to confront a massive guy in a dress head on. We know how that ends. Luckily we don't need to.

For every one open terf there are 5 or 10 in the shadows. They are winning now, we are going to win even more in a few more years.

As mentioned the 'male violence' defence doesn't apply in every setting. The evidence regarding unisex facilities was referring to public sports centres & swimming pools changing facilities not public toilets with different designs influencing offending.

I don't think Bailey is aware of the figures provided by the UK Prison Service which show the prevalence of 3 times the number of men who say they are women who are there for sexual crimes than the men who do not say they are women. Because that would completely undermine their word salad I mean argument.

Is/ought seems to be a new deflection point (we seem to be getting new "arguments " popping up every day now, as the edifice of transactivism crumbles like sugar paste). Just like trans+. And gender is different from sex. And transmen.

Bailey has been trying the is/ought thing on at least one other thread.

It's obfuscation, because they can't stop the whole thing unravelling.

So the philosophy was just a huge detour and all you are saying is that policy making requires evidence? Shall we talk about the evidence then?

99% of sexual crimes are committed by males. 85% of the victims are female. That is why men, as a sex class, are excluded from spaces where women are vulnerable. Please show proof that transwomen are a sacred cast and only commit sex crimes at the female rate. Given that the only objective criteria for being a transwoman is to be male and declare yourself one, that might be a tall order. But this is on you to prove it, not us to disprove it (although we can). Good luck.

To use your toilet example, your problem is that because, unlike sex, 'trans' is now a completely subjective concept (largely a consequence of campaigning by organisations like Stonewall after 2010) you can only make a practical argument for single sex or mixed sex toilets.

I have a concern that people who think along the lines of Baileyoince see the word "subjective" (as used - perfectly reasonably - in the above-quoted para) and interpret it positively as a validation of their arguments against what they think of as "biological essentialism", or, more generally (given what Bailey wrote about "is and "ought") against a "material essentialism".

They think of it as radical, disruptive, nuanced and sharp to emphasise that a focus on 'the material' loses sight of the degree to which the shared reality in which we operate is in fact a construct, and therefore 'subjective' in the sense that it arises within human meaning-making rather than 'in the world'.

So I think it is important to unpack the word 'subjective' a bit, to see how/whether it fits in with the emphasis on the gender-theorist's take on the idea that reality is a social construct.

Specifically, gender theorists seem to rely heavily on the idea that the subjective self-perception of gender identity is something inner and unfalsifiable. But any concept of reality as a social construct (subjective, in the sense of being something other than, or more than, a material reality lying outside of our human meaning-making) has to be able to make sense of subjectivity as something essentially social -- something that forms the basis for a shared reality: it can't identify the subjective realm with the inner realm. Meaning breaks down if we try to tether it in wholly private experiences.

I can't articulate this well, but google Wittgenstein's private language argument. I think the conclusion to be drawn from that argument is that gender theorists' account of the self-perception of gender is at odds with the social constructivist views that they seem to endorse.