"Misandry is the root of all trans fear. Men’s fear of other men. Women’s fear of all men."

Did you ever explain why you thought Churchill was in the A Team?

?

Are you okay?

The distinction between gender stereotypes (which obviously exist) and gender identity (which is nothing more than a desire to be perceived a certain way) has been explained perhaps hundreds of times over the years here.

Edited for a typo.

Er, this is the quote I was replying to which claimed gender did not exist all:

"They still don't understand that a lot of us do not believe in gender at all. It does not exist so it cannot be acquired outside, inside, or both."

And in any case, gender is defined as:

"the socially constructed roles, behaviours , expressions, and identities that a society considers appropriate for men, women, and other gender identities.

Gender identity is simply identifying with these expectations/stereotypes as in recognising a commonality between oneself & stereotypes. So to say its just a desire to be seen a certain way is a very limited superficial understanding.

Ha, always good to post a definition in quotes without attribution. Can you look up woman in your dictionary too?

I don't want to speak for the pp but it seemed to me that they were referring to the term 'gender' as it is used: as shorthand for an unknowable, unquestionable stated gender identity which must be taken as somehow sacred.

Your definition of GI: 'recognising a commonality between oneself & stereotypes' is actually pretty good. I'll add it to mine: Recognising a commonality between oneself & stereotypes and desiring to be perceived as the sex associated with those stereotypes. Happy with that. One minor change to reflect that we can't know what someone else truly feels:
Recognising (or claiming to recognise) a commonality between oneself & stereotypes and desiring to be perceived as the sex associated with those stereotypes.
I'm genuinely delighted. That's a decent definition of gender identity imo.

desiring to be perceived as the sex associated with those stereotypes.

Its desiring to be perceived as the gender associated with the stereotypes. Thats why trans people call themselves trans gender & not trans sexual.

Lol, if that was the case we wouldn't have needed the SC judgment, would we?

You're confusing an entitlement to the same rights as a claim to be a member of the same group. Two very different things

So if sex and gender are different as you’re saying, and transpeople recognise that, why do they demand access to spaces designated for the opposite sex?

But à TIM has exactly the same rights as any other male and TIF the same as any other female. What other rights do they think they should be entitled to?

I think the point is there is no gender as a standalone phenomenon.
There are gender stereotypes, which exist, and gender identity, which we've defined. You've disagreed with @BiologicalRobot that gender doesn't exist, brought up gender stereotypes and gender identity, then retreated back to 'gender' again. You did coin a good definition of GI though: identifying with gender stereotypes. Other than that you're arguing in circles. Have a good day.

Spaces aren't owned by any sex. What determines their exclusive right to it as in a special exemption is there's a:

Legitimate Aim: The exclusion or restriction must pursue a genuine, lawful objective (such as ensuring physical privacy, safety, decency, or trauma-informed care).

Proportionate Means: Using the single-sex exception must be a proportionate means to achieve that legitimate aim. There are no blanket exemptions; each situation must be evaluated on its own merits.

Least Discriminatory Option: Providers must always choose the option that least restricts the rights of those affected.

Objectively Justified

In other words sex is not a get out of jail free card.

I can explain to you but I can't understand it for you.

Have a good day.

Nooo, but they are designated. So you’ve just argued sex and gender are different, so why would someone’s “gender” allow them to access spaces designated for the opposite sex? Why can they not use the mixed gender single sex spaces relevant to their sex?

But “ensuring physical privacy, safety, decency, or trauma-informed care” is literally why single-sex changing spaces/therapy groups/refuges etc exist. No one is arguing that there should be single-sex corner shops or trains for example. And so if we all agree that transwomen may present visually as a gender stereotype of ‘woman’ but we all really know that their sex hasn’t changed and they’re still men, then there isn’t a problem with them remaining in their own single-sex spaces, is there?

I’m not sure what difference you think your bold sections of text make to anything.

I belatedly realised that a new aim is to deny TRAs ever deliberately conflated sex and gender for their own ends. We have an uncited definition of gender in quotes to 'explain' it. So we now have an airy 'but we never said people were entitled to access single sex spaces on the basis of gender identity '.

Given that- I suppose 'gender' can be chopped liver for all tbe substantive difference it makes in the world...

So you’ve just argued sex and gender are different, so why would someone’s “gender” allow them to access spaces designated for the opposite sex?

Because it depends on whether the qualifying criteria I mentioned applies.

What qualifying criteria? Either they are the sex who should access that space or they are not. Simple. Unless you are now arguing people should be allowed access to single sex spaces even though they are not that sex? Why? What materiel benefit would women gain from making all their spaces mixed sex? You’ve said transpeople know their sex, so why should their “gender identity” allow them to access single sex spaces for the opposite sex?

But “ensuring physical privacy, safety, decency, or trauma-informed care” is literally why single-sex changing spaces/therapy groups/refuges etc exist.

Of course but it depends on the context is the point. Not all spaces involve these needs though or the needs are contestable. For example a space where being in a state of undress is problematic for obvious reasons like open change rooms but public toilets where locked cubicles exist its not so clear.

I’m not sure what difference you think your bold sections of text make to anything.

C'mon take a wild guess!

Spaces can be single sex (for all the reasons mentioned- privacy dignity etc) or mixed sex.

There is no legal provision for 'women plus people who identify as women' spaces. It's not a thing.

So you think males with a trans identity should be allowed into some female spaces but males without a trans identity should be excluded, or do you think all males should be allowed into some female spaces? If you are only allowing males with a trans identity into some female spaces, what is the reasoning for excluding males without a trans identity?

Um there is. Its this thing called 'anti discrimination law'. Women can only get exemptions under the conditions mentioned above. Being a women without meeting these conditions isn't enough.

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

so Why do you believe some males should be allowed into female spaces? What proportionate and legitimate aim would be achieved? How would allowing these males into female spaces and making the space mixed sex benefit women?

I think you have this the wrong way round. Its the group claiming the exemption that has to meet the special exemptions test.

Nope. Why do you believe some males should be allowed into female spaces? That’s the question? Why do you believe women should not have single sex spaces? You’ve already said sex and gender are different, so what aim would allowing males into female spaces achieve in your opinion? Would this benefit women? If not, what is the legitimate aim of making spaces mixed sex?
of course, if you do make a space mixed sex, and males with a trans identity claim that they need access to female spaces as they are scared of using male spaces, how will making spaces mixed sex make those males safer? The very males that they are scared of will also be in those spaces.

Unless of course you are arguing some males should be allowed into female because of their “gender”? In which case, why?