Page 4 | Oxford City Council trans rights plan approved amid 'intimidation'

IwantToRetire · 2026-10-07T20:38:57+00:00

^On October 5, the city council voted in favour of a motion which attempts to "ensure the rights, dignity and privacy of trans and non-binary residents of Oxford are supported to the maximum extent permitted by law" following an April 2025 Supreme Court judgement.^ ^The ruling defined “sex” within the Equality Act as “biological sex” and “sex at birth” - since the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission updated its guidance for enforcing the act.^ ^The council has now passed a motion put forward by trans and non-binary councillors stating, “Trans women are women. Trans men are men. Non-binary people are non-binary,” and calling for new rights legislation, amid descriptions of fear and abuse faced by residents and representatives.^ ^The proposal aims to ensure access to council toilets and leisure facilities in line with self-identification.^ Extracts only - full article [[https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/26611556.oxford-trans-rights-plan-approved-amid-intimidation/ https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/26611556.oxford-trans-rights-plan-approved-amid-intimidation/]]

oxfordfeminist · 11/10/2026 12:01

Honestly, it's up to you to read the actual article, Aston. Maybe ask AI for a summary of the article's contents? AI isn't a perfect tool, but it will produce something more accurate than the summary you came up with.

Wishesandhorses · 11/10/2026 12:01

From the abstract in that link:

criminal law has continued to frame HIV in terms of personal responsibility and bodily autonomy within the dominant narratives of danger, disease, and out-dated science. Doctrinal law has failed to keep pace with social and scientific change. Therefore, in this article, we provide a re-examination of the criminal issues relating to HIV transmission within this new landscape, arguing that it necessitates a shift in attitude, policy and doctrine. We specifically argue that HIV transmission does not meet the appropriate harm threshold to constitute GBH and that if criminal law is ultimately about preventing or regulating harm, the ongoing criminalisation of HIV transmission is counter to that aim.

That would seem fairly clear?

AstonCanKissMyArse · 11/10/2026 11:58

oxfordfeminist · 11/10/2026 11:45

I was horrified to read this, so I looked at the actual article, and guess what, that's not what Morris is arguing. At all.

I would encourage people to read the article for themselves if they are interested, rather than relying on this inaccurate summary.

I'm not impressed by Aston misrepresenting someone's academic research.

Show quote history

Would you like to precis it for us then?

That's absolutely what I got from the abstract.

Perhaps you can explain it.

oxfordfeminist · 11/10/2026 11:45

AstonCanKissMyArse · 10/10/2026 23:18

That actually sounds useful.

However, one of his other studies linked above appears to be arguing that knowingly infecting a partner with HIV should not constitute (as it currently does) GBH as its treatable these days.

He seems to be all about freeing the penis from the constraints of condoms (which of course is more dangerous for women than men).

What a charming individual. No wonder he is all about mens rights.

Show quote history

I was horrified to read this, so I looked at the actual article, and guess what, that's not what Morris is arguing. At all.

I would encourage people to read the article for themselves if they are interested, rather than relying on this inaccurate summary.

I'm not impressed by Aston misrepresenting someone's academic research.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 11/10/2026 11:09

Justme56 · 11/10/2026 10:46

Dr M admits in the video mentioned (where he gets negative criticism) that he has HIV.

Show quote history

So any 'studies' he does on his chosen subject, are biased and unusable because it's activism identifying as academic work.

Why if he's HIV does he want to do away with the preventative measures put in place to prevent the spread of HIV?

Someone else who wants to feel 'normal' and can't do so if there are people who don't have HIV, so he wants to normalise it by getting more people infected with HIV. Why? just so he can feel good about himself. 🤯

Justme56 · 11/10/2026 10:46

AstonCanKissMyArse · 10/10/2026 23:18

That actually sounds useful.

However, one of his other studies linked above appears to be arguing that knowingly infecting a partner with HIV should not constitute (as it currently does) GBH as its treatable these days.

He seems to be all about freeing the penis from the constraints of condoms (which of course is more dangerous for women than men).

What a charming individual. No wonder he is all about mens rights.

Show quote history

Dr M admits in the video mentioned (where he gets negative criticism) that he has HIV.

Wishesandhorses · 11/10/2026 10:30

TLDR: in this superior 'feminism' what do you do with all the vulnerable women who are excluded by it?

Ducking stools, scolds bridles and stocks cannot be part of the solution I'm afraid.

Wishesandhorses · 11/10/2026 10:29

oxfordfeminist · 10/10/2026 20:57

I think you're misrepresenting me somewhat here. If you read over my posts, I never claimed that all the women in Oxford(shire) share my views. I know they don't. I also qualified the word 'weird' by saying that I perceived the worry about toilets to be weird. Because frankly, I do. That's not quite the same as calling someone a weirdo because they hold different views. Language matters. You can robustly disagree with someone's point of view without attacking the person.

I know a lot of intelligent women who hold trans-exclusionary views, and I think that's a shame, but I'm not interested in belittling/insulting you or anyone else who disagrees with me.

My point was that there are enough trans-friendly people in Oxford for Max Morris to have been elected as a councillor, and I'm happy about that.

I find the inflammatory nature of these threads quite unhelpful. I believe that for most feminists, regardless of their views on trans issues, what we share in common is greater than our differences.

Show quote history

Still skipping the actual issues?

What do you plan to do with all these awful women who aren't the right sort like you, and cannot share mixed sex spaces due to their own issues and needs and diversity that affect women?

Are you arguing for the restriction of inclusion to only the groups you approve of and to people who are like you? Is your point that you see exclusion and lesser civil rights and access to society as the deserved lot of women who have suffered VAWG, are disabled, are from cultures and faiths you don't personally share and see as lesser, and cannot put aside their own needs to prioritise those of men who are apparently desperate to be with non consenting women in a state of undress regardless of the distress or impact this has upon women?

What is the issue for you in tolerating the existence of accessible single sex provision for those women alongside mixed sex/gender neutral provision? Should inclusion not then seek for answers that mean no one is left without equality or access? Or is this about punishing the women who won't put men first and shaming them as your post tries very hard to do here?

This is rather interesting 'feminism' to say the least. In fact its rather interesting values full stop, with quite significant snobbery and bigotry, but I think identifying as feminist at this point has become rather silly.

Unless you are attempting to argue that there should never be single sex spaces or provisions of any kind - and you do you, but the law and policy is perfectly satisfied that there are absolutely reasonable conditions and situations in which men and women want sex based separate provisions for privacy and dignity - this is all a bit mad, isn't it?

And no, it's not about 'gender'. It's about sex. Women of any gender they like are welcome in women's sex based spaces, unless of course they have chosen to change their appearance to the point that they may cause fear and distress to vulnerable women in those spaces. At which point they are fine, because there will be the gender neutral spaces available to them for their access and inclusion.

Naunet · 11/10/2026 09:58

oxfordfeminist · 09/10/2026 19:09

@nicepotoftea perhaps completely enclosed toilets ARE dangerous. Though sexual assaults in Oxford have occurred in lots of other spaces as well, like churchyards 😢

But I don’t see people on this thread complaining about enclosed toilets. I see them complaining due to what I perceive as a weird, ungrounded fear of toilets being shared by people with different gender identities.

Edited

The rape and sexual assault of women wasn't on your Concern List though was it? How very strange when you call yourself a feminist.

DialSquare · 11/10/2026 09:39

oxfordfeminist · 10/10/2026 20:57

I think you're misrepresenting me somewhat here. If you read over my posts, I never claimed that all the women in Oxford(shire) share my views. I know they don't. I also qualified the word 'weird' by saying that I perceived the worry about toilets to be weird. Because frankly, I do. That's not quite the same as calling someone a weirdo because they hold different views. Language matters. You can robustly disagree with someone's point of view without attacking the person.

I know a lot of intelligent women who hold trans-exclusionary views, and I think that's a shame, but I'm not interested in belittling/insulting you or anyone else who disagrees with me.

My point was that there are enough trans-friendly people in Oxford for Max Morris to have been elected as a councillor, and I'm happy about that.

I find the inflammatory nature of these threads quite unhelpful. I believe that for most feminists, regardless of their views on trans issues, what we share in common is greater than our differences.

Show quote history

Language matters

It certainly does.

jeaux90 · 11/10/2026 08:57

@oxfordfeminist as a local resident I do not want my local government using tax money to defy legislation. By all means they can create additional neutral facilities in their buildings, but when over 95% of sexual assaults are committed by males according to the ONS, single sex spaces in public services are important. Remember the EA also protects people who are under going gender reassignment from discrimination BUT if the intention is to use Self Identification as their access policy then they are going to have a law suit on their hands.

Shedmistress · 11/10/2026 08:49

oxfordfeminist · 10/10/2026 20:57

I think you're misrepresenting me somewhat here. If you read over my posts, I never claimed that all the women in Oxford(shire) share my views. I know they don't. I also qualified the word 'weird' by saying that I perceived the worry about toilets to be weird. Because frankly, I do. That's not quite the same as calling someone a weirdo because they hold different views. Language matters. You can robustly disagree with someone's point of view without attacking the person.

I know a lot of intelligent women who hold trans-exclusionary views, and I think that's a shame, but I'm not interested in belittling/insulting you or anyone else who disagrees with me.

My point was that there are enough trans-friendly people in Oxford for Max Morris to have been elected as a councillor, and I'm happy about that.

I find the inflammatory nature of these threads quite unhelpful. I believe that for most feminists, regardless of their views on trans issues, what we share in common is greater than our differences.

Show quote history

Do you not know that males as a class are a threat to females as a class?

Do you need some 'feminist' pointers? You do not seem aware of why there are single sex spaces in the first place.

Helleofabore · 11/10/2026 08:17

MusselTryHarder · 10/10/2026 16:07

You're right, communal was definitely not the right word. The Saturday morning rush is a tricky time to write up a reply on MN. My point is, oxfordfeminist, that you don't speak for all the women in your area. The people objecting on this thread, may well not live near Oxford, but I do, and I don't consent to having my right to single sex spaces overridden by some paternalistic movement telling me it's all in the name of inclusion. There are many women who are fully abreast of the issue, are very well-informed, and have reached polar opposite conclusions to you. But in an effort to be inclusive, you are telling these women who disagree with you that their views are "weird". Or that we're old reactionary bigots who simply haven't bothered to be as cosmopolitan as you and get some trans friends. Have you never considered that perhaps some of us are your contemporaries, well-educated and well-informed gender non-conforming feminists and progressives who have been affected by these policies for over a decade? Has it ever occurred to you that rather than breezily dismiss the views of women in your local area with thinly veiled contempt, that you might try to understand why it is that women and girls may want and need single sex spaces in an effort to build a path forward? Or is it just easier (or more fun) to paint mumsnetters and other GC feminists as genital fetishists? Weirdos with beliefs unworthy of respect in a democratic society?

Sadly, MusselTryHarder, I think you are engaging with someone who just repeats the sound bites without deeper engagement.

I have not seen any engagement on the issue of consent and how it is not something that another person can demand or agree for someone else.

Hence we see the ludicrous repetition of the hyperbolic and hypocritical accusations about genital inspections and other distinctive mantra like sound bites.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 11/10/2026 08:13

HIVpos · 10/10/2026 19:41

HIV and the Law and the study of it is actually not meaningless, unnecessary codswallop.
I took part in one of their studies over the Covid pandemic comparing stigma experienced by people with Covid and people with HIV how the government represented both, how they were viewed by the public, blame, shame, isolation etc.

Show quote history

Thank you for the information, I take back my assessment and change it to dangerous and irresponsible use of academia.
According to another poster this man wants to decriminalise anyone who deliberately infects someone else with a lifelong and potently killing disease and he recommends those who have HIV to adopt a condom free sex life.
You helped bring this about, I don't know if it was your intention when you took part in the study, but you've helped provide information that this academic is using to advocate for an anything goes, damn the consequence, approach to Public Health.
All the limitations and health issues you suffer from could now be inflected on others if this man's study results in changes.

nicepotoftea · 11/10/2026 07:38

MusselTryHarder · 10/10/2026 22:57

You agree you are not speaking for all women, and yet you are happy to support a councillor who is wholesale removing all local women’s rights to single sex spaces. Which is arguably worse.

I am far from the only one who has found your tone patronising, and I think if you’re finding the tone inflammatory it might be worth reflecting on why that is.

Show quote history

From what I understand it’s more than that. The council doesn’t even recognise that it’s possible to distinguish women from men.

I suppose one has to assume that it’s a misconception that most Oxford colleges didn’t admit women until the 1970s. Presumably they were all mixed sex but some people just didn’t identify with education and coincidentally those people also had a tendency to gestate babies.

nicepotoftea · 11/10/2026 07:27

oxfordfeminist · 10/10/2026 20:57

I think you're misrepresenting me somewhat here. If you read over my posts, I never claimed that all the women in Oxford(shire) share my views. I know they don't. I also qualified the word 'weird' by saying that I perceived the worry about toilets to be weird. Because frankly, I do. That's not quite the same as calling someone a weirdo because they hold different views. Language matters. You can robustly disagree with someone's point of view without attacking the person.

I know a lot of intelligent women who hold trans-exclusionary views, and I think that's a shame, but I'm not interested in belittling/insulting you or anyone else who disagrees with me.

My point was that there are enough trans-friendly people in Oxford for Max Morris to have been elected as a councillor, and I'm happy about that.

I find the inflammatory nature of these threads quite unhelpful. I believe that for most feminists, regardless of their views on trans issues, what we share in common is greater than our differences.

Show quote history

If ‘trans friendly’ means speaking in platitudes without proposing any practical policy or legislative changes.

AstonCanKissMyArse · 10/10/2026 23:18

HIVpos · 10/10/2026 19:41

HIV and the Law and the study of it is actually not meaningless, unnecessary codswallop.
I took part in one of their studies over the Covid pandemic comparing stigma experienced by people with Covid and people with HIV how the government represented both, how they were viewed by the public, blame, shame, isolation etc.

Show quote history

That actually sounds useful.

However, one of his other studies linked above appears to be arguing that knowingly infecting a partner with HIV should not constitute (as it currently does) GBH as its treatable these days.

He seems to be all about freeing the penis from the constraints of condoms (which of course is more dangerous for women than men).

What a charming individual. No wonder he is all about mens rights.

AstonCanKissMyArse · 10/10/2026 23:13

MusselTryHarder · 10/10/2026 22:57

You agree you are not speaking for all women, and yet you are happy to support a councillor who is wholesale removing all local women’s rights to single sex spaces. Which is arguably worse.

I am far from the only one who has found your tone patronising, and I think if you’re finding the tone inflammatory it might be worth reflecting on why that is.

Show quote history

Its a little bit like going into a working mens club in a deprived area, loudly discussing closing down the local hospital, primary school and library for cost savings - and then complaining that you weren't made to feel welcome and that some people got a bit shirty about it!

MusselTryHarder · 10/10/2026 22:57

oxfordfeminist · 10/10/2026 20:57

I think you're misrepresenting me somewhat here. If you read over my posts, I never claimed that all the women in Oxford(shire) share my views. I know they don't. I also qualified the word 'weird' by saying that I perceived the worry about toilets to be weird. Because frankly, I do. That's not quite the same as calling someone a weirdo because they hold different views. Language matters. You can robustly disagree with someone's point of view without attacking the person.

I know a lot of intelligent women who hold trans-exclusionary views, and I think that's a shame, but I'm not interested in belittling/insulting you or anyone else who disagrees with me.

My point was that there are enough trans-friendly people in Oxford for Max Morris to have been elected as a councillor, and I'm happy about that.

I find the inflammatory nature of these threads quite unhelpful. I believe that for most feminists, regardless of their views on trans issues, what we share in common is greater than our differences.

Show quote history

You agree you are not speaking for all women, and yet you are happy to support a councillor who is wholesale removing all local women’s rights to single sex spaces. Which is arguably worse.

I am far from the only one who has found your tone patronising, and I think if you’re finding the tone inflammatory it might be worth reflecting on why that is.

TheKeatingFive · 10/10/2026 21:01

oxfordfeminist · 10/10/2026 20:57

I think you're misrepresenting me somewhat here. If you read over my posts, I never claimed that all the women in Oxford(shire) share my views. I know they don't. I also qualified the word 'weird' by saying that I perceived the worry about toilets to be weird. Because frankly, I do. That's not quite the same as calling someone a weirdo because they hold different views. Language matters. You can robustly disagree with someone's point of view without attacking the person.

I know a lot of intelligent women who hold trans-exclusionary views, and I think that's a shame, but I'm not interested in belittling/insulting you or anyone else who disagrees with me.

My point was that there are enough trans-friendly people in Oxford for Max Morris to have been elected as a councillor, and I'm happy about that.

I find the inflammatory nature of these threads quite unhelpful. I believe that for most feminists, regardless of their views on trans issues, what we share in common is greater than our differences.

Show quote history

Why do you think intelligent women should try to dismantle women's sex based rights?

Personally I hope intelligent women are doing the exact opposite of that.

oxfordfeminist · 10/10/2026 20:57

MusselTryHarder · 10/10/2026 16:07

You're right, communal was definitely not the right word. The Saturday morning rush is a tricky time to write up a reply on MN. My point is, oxfordfeminist, that you don't speak for all the women in your area. The people objecting on this thread, may well not live near Oxford, but I do, and I don't consent to having my right to single sex spaces overridden by some paternalistic movement telling me it's all in the name of inclusion. There are many women who are fully abreast of the issue, are very well-informed, and have reached polar opposite conclusions to you. But in an effort to be inclusive, you are telling these women who disagree with you that their views are "weird". Or that we're old reactionary bigots who simply haven't bothered to be as cosmopolitan as you and get some trans friends. Have you never considered that perhaps some of us are your contemporaries, well-educated and well-informed gender non-conforming feminists and progressives who have been affected by these policies for over a decade? Has it ever occurred to you that rather than breezily dismiss the views of women in your local area with thinly veiled contempt, that you might try to understand why it is that women and girls may want and need single sex spaces in an effort to build a path forward? Or is it just easier (or more fun) to paint mumsnetters and other GC feminists as genital fetishists? Weirdos with beliefs unworthy of respect in a democratic society?

I think you're misrepresenting me somewhat here. If you read over my posts, I never claimed that all the women in Oxford(shire) share my views. I know they don't. I also qualified the word 'weird' by saying that I perceived the worry about toilets to be weird. Because frankly, I do. That's not quite the same as calling someone a weirdo because they hold different views. Language matters. You can robustly disagree with someone's point of view without attacking the person.

I know a lot of intelligent women who hold trans-exclusionary views, and I think that's a shame, but I'm not interested in belittling/insulting you or anyone else who disagrees with me.

My point was that there are enough trans-friendly people in Oxford for Max Morris to have been elected as a councillor, and I'm happy about that.

I find the inflammatory nature of these threads quite unhelpful. I believe that for most feminists, regardless of their views on trans issues, what we share in common is greater than our differences.

HIVpos · 10/10/2026 19:41

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant · 10/10/2026 13:41

He has a doctorate for 'studying' such meaningless, unnecessary, codswallop. Mao was right, send them all out to the fields, they can spend their working life weeding the countryside, that would be them being productive at least.

Show quote history

HIV and the Law and the study of it is actually not meaningless, unnecessary codswallop.
I took part in one of their studies over the Covid pandemic comparing stigma experienced by people with Covid and people with HIV how the government represented both, how they were viewed by the public, blame, shame, isolation etc.

nicepotoftea · 10/10/2026 19:10

Rubidium · 10/10/2026 12:24

Coming back to Councillor Morris and Oxford City Council, impending local government reorganisation is likely to mean that Oxford City Council will be reorganised out of existence, potentially along with Cllr Morris’s seat. Which will mean that they he will have more time to spend on his research into subjects like 'Bareback Sex in the Age of Preventative Medication: Rethinking the ‘Harms’ of HIV Transmission'

Max clearly spends a lot of time thinking about HIV transmission, but if they are considering 'bareback sex', I hope they are also taking a hormonal contraceptive and only having sex with people who are also taking a hormonal contraceptive.

Obviously there is no way of knowing whether you are the kind of person who might become pregnant, so everyone needs to take precautions.

nicepotoftea · 10/10/2026 18:28

Ereshkigalangcleg · 10/10/2026 10:37

It is quite funny how quickly the average genderist will get to “genital checks”. It’s quite the trope in Genderlandia, isn’t it?

Probably sounds great on Bluesky.

However doesn't suggest any real engagement with protecting anyone's rights.

Heggettypeg · 10/10/2026 18:26

Wishesandhorses · 10/10/2026 18:01

Well said.

Those women who wish to share mixed spaces with men are wholly free to do so in the additional gender neutral spaces to be provided via the EHRC guidance.

They merely need to tolerate the existence of single sex provision that is a necessity for many women for accessibility and inclusion.

Just tolerate. That's all. Just permit other women to have access too.

One wonders why this is such an enormous challenge.

This.

Remember the Edinburgh rape crisis centre case? Staff were not only refusing to provide single sex services themselves, but deliberately not telling women who asked for single sex help that it was available at Beira's Place, also in Edinburgh. "Transwomen are women" - or no help.

That's not feminism. And it's not kind. It's malevolent. (It's the moral equivalent of a Christian aid agency in a warzone both refusing to help anyone who won't "accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour" and also withholding the information that there is a secular or Muslim agency round the corner that will be happy to help without enforcing that condition.)

It was a bit of an eye-opener, frankly. I knew about the hounding of Kathleen Stock and JK Rowling, and so on, but this was a new low.