Continuation of Polypostwonder thread

The law in California says trans women are women. No woman has any consent over whether another woman may access a public accommodation available to all women.

This sounds more like consent than the context discussed here. If a person object to the presence of another, then object to the specific person in a specific place.

I agree women have no legal power to exclude other women. I've said this many times. My understanding of consent is it doesn't require law enforcement, it is a personal right. I assume there were plenty of FWR members who claimed a right of consent over public spaces prior to FWS; with no specific law backing their belief in who is a man or a woman? Will this change again in the UK if and when the law is further 'clarified?'

A lot of Britons still don't consent to being in facilities with same sex attracted people. I feel this context is very similar to that context, only straight people were generally far more vocal about it than gender critical people in public spaces.

Regarding the twitter posters, I assume they believe trans women to be women, so they wouldn't be excluding trans women. But they would also expect 'terfs' to respect their lack of consent and to use third options.

The law in California says trans women are women. No woman has any consent over whether another woman may access a public accommodation available to all women.

I don't think so. I've read non-trans women on twitter who say they "don't consent to sharing toilets with 'terfs'." How does that work, exactly?

I agree women have no legal power to exclude other women. I've said this many times. My understanding of consent is it doesn't require law enforcement, it is a personal right. I assume there were plenty of FWR members who claimed a right of consent over public spaces prior to FWS; with no specific law backing their belief in who is a man or a woman? Will this change again in the UK if and when the law is further 'clarified?'

A lot of Britons still don't consent to being in facilities with same sex attracted people. I feel this context is very similar to that context, only straight people were generally far more vocal about it than gender critical people in public spaces.

Regarding the twitter posters, I assume they believe trans women to be women, so they wouldn't be excluding trans women. But they would also expect 'terfs' to respect their lack of consent and to use third options.

Judge Kemp said that if any woman complained about presence of a man in the changing room due to her trauma history, the employer would have to find other space for said man.

But FWIW he was talking utter mince.

I am not a lawyer, but even I can see the holes in his judgement are actually larger than the judgment itself.

Judge Kemp said that if any woman complained about presence of a man in the changing room due to her trauma history, the employer would have to find other space for said man.

But FWIW he was talking utter mince.

I am not a lawyer, but even I can see the holes in his judgement are actually larger than the judgment itself.

Gosh you really are struggling today PPW.

Women have no legal power to exclude other women. Their legal power is limited to excluding men.

"That" works by them choosing to stay out of spaces where they will meet women who don't agree with men sharing women's spaces. Effectively that would mean them staying at home, as this is a majority held view.

Wasn't something like this suggested by the Judge in the Sandie Peggie case?

It needs to be clear that a space is either single sex or mixed sex. We don't need to vote.

Will it help @polypostwonderto understand if I explain that consent in this context means that all women have a veto and if just one of us exercises that veto then the presence of men has been rejected?

Single sex provision exists because either it is mandated by law or because the service provider has made it available.

Service users cannot either give or withdraw consent on behalf of others.

Will it help @polypostwonderto understand if I explain that consent in this context means that all women have a veto and if just one of us exercises that veto then the presence of men has been rejected?

The law in California says trans women are women. No woman has any consent over whether another woman may access a public accommodation available to all women.

And it would follow, using that same argument, that no woman can withdraw consent (if such a thing even exists) on behalf of any other woman.

ETA "in this context" to the above because gender critical people.

And it would follow, using that same argument, that no woman can withdraw consent (if such a thing even exists) on behalf of any other woman.

Yes consent as a thing exists.

What a statement! Holy Fuck.

What a ridiculous argument, you're scraping the barrel now. I thought you were an intelligent person.

You are talking about a law that says men should not be in women's spaces.

The consent those women are giving is to do something which is not legal for the supplier to provide.

And in that case, the concept of "withdrawing consent" for other women to give consent to breaking the law is utterly ridiculous.

Those women also have rights to a female only space. That right cannot be removed by another woman who doesn't care about sharing her space with a man.

Found it!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4196176-Consent-for-women

Just to repeat this and to be clear:

"enough women over the years have told him that him using the provisions was wrong and that he should not do so." How many women is enough?”

How many women is enough?

ONE

It only takes one female person to not consent for a male person to access a female single sex provision to use it for consent to be withdrawn.

That is how consent works.