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

Any context where there's no justifiable exemption.

Any context where there's no justifiable exemption.

Most “trans people” can be clocked from space so there’s zero “privacy concerns” about them being “outed” as the opposite sex.

You have no meaningful evidence to prove that other than anecdotal instances.

Well there is. Either you allow all males in or you are discriminating against those who do not claim a gender identity. You can’t say a service is mixed sex but exclude some members of one sex. What criteria would you be using? Gender identity? Then you would need to prove a definition of gender identity that would be coherent and able to be applied consistently.

There's no discrimination if there's no disadvantage being the argument. And as yet, men claiming discrimination as a result of trans women been given special treatment is yet to be tested in law. We simply have not got this far yet.

There's no discrimination if there's no disadvantage being the argument. And as yet, men claiming discrimination as a result of trans women been given special treatment is yet to be tested in law. We simply have not got this far yet.

But then no transperson has any evidence they “pass” apart from anecdotal instances either….

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.

But, by definition, sex alone is the only qualifier for a single-sex space! It has to be. That’s the whole point.

The burden of proof is on the claimant. In other words if a person makes the claim all trans people don't pass then its on them to prove they all don't.

Good luck with that.

But it isn't because the qualifying criteria in context needs to be met. If it didn't then why have the qualifying criteria?

well, it made the GG and the WI change their membership criteria and the NHS and a lot of other institutions and services change their policies. I mean, if they were convinced that they would be right to allow some males into female spaces, they’d have stood their ground and defended their policies wouldn’t they….

Like what?

Why don’t any of the ones on social media pass then?

But then all men would be able to use that space. Aren’t TIM afraid of sharing spaces with males? How would making spaces mixed sex help them?

But it isn't because the qualifying criteria in context needs to be met. If it didn't then why have the qualifying criteria?

Exactly, so that last one is just some thoughtless, bog standard v1.0 misogynistic man, not a TIM even. He has no fucking idea.

But it isn't because the qualifying criteria in context needs to be met. If it didn't then why have the qualifying criteria?

Who is arguing for sex segregated workplaces? No workplace is. SSS.

Sex is the characteristic that identifies whether someone can be excluded from a space. If it’s single sex it meets the definition of being proportionate, or the provider is confident it would meet that definition if tested in court.

well, it made the GG and the WI change their membership criteria and the NHS and a lot of other institutions and services change their policies. I mean, if they were convinced that they would be right to allow some males into female spaces, they’d have stood their ground and defended their policies wouldn’t they….

According to you after the fact of revealing they are trans? Please, do better.