... ... to remind people of protected characteristics.

[sphinxa]

As defined in the The Equality Act – age, disability, gender reassignment, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity - are all protected characteristics.

The are protected characteristics for a good reason.

The volume of stereotyping and prejudice on here over the last couple of weeks (or months) has been eye watering : People spouting preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or actual experience and the general feelings towards people based solely on their protected characteristics.

If you think it's just a bit of harmless stereotyping, you're wrong. Stereotypes encourage prejudice. Prejudice encourages discrimination.

My main concern in terms of MN posts is the eye-watering amount of disability discrimination, particularly in relation to disabled children with behavioural problems in schools, but also in relation to things like accessible toilets and wheelchair spaces on buses.

This is actually an important conversation and when feelings get really hot, it's difficult to have proper conversations.

A lot revolves around who you think is actually discriminated against. Hence why it would be fine to have a Black Police Officers meeting but not a white one. A South Asian Women's Housing Association but not an English one. Which is why this conversation is so nasty between feminists and trans women. Oddly, it seems to come down to whether you think male privilege is persistent or cis privilege is a thing.

Women are repeatedly traumatised when dealing with rape, corrections and so on. Therefore I think it's proper that they get the service they want, with no regard to the feelings of the service provider. Same with anything where consent is an issue (hospital, psychiatric care, security at airports) because women's consent is completely compromised repeatedly. Things like employment law, maybe transwomen are, so that's a really difficult conversation.

@PlainSpeakingStraightTalking - I was not for one minute suggesting that trauma is the protected characteristic for the female rape victim I mentioned - it is her sex that is the protected characteristic - I thought that was obvious. I mentioned trauma because that is one reason that a woman (a cis woman, as the trans activists would name them) rape victim might well NOT want a person with a fully intact, fully functional penis in the same space as them.

What about the rights of female prisoners not to have a violent prisoner with a fully intact and functional penis, locked up with them, able to rape or sexually assault them? Do the rights of the person who is identifying as female but still has, and wants to use sexually, a fully functioning penis trump the rights of vulnerable female prisoners to be safe?

Do the rights of a trans woman to have sex with a lesbian woman, using their fully functional penis, trump the rights of the lesbian woman to choose not to have a penis in her vagina? You will, I am sure, say no, of course the lesbian woman has every right to choose her sexual partners - but some trans activists would disagree, and have held talks and written posts about how to conquer the 'cotton ceiling' - ie. how to get into the knickers of lesbians - and lesbian women who don't want PIV sex are being called transphobic, and told they should stop 'focusing on genitals'!

Is it OK that Shon Faye has said 'women - enjoy your erasure'? Is it OK for some trans activists to wear t-shirts that appear to be splattered with blood, and which encourage violence against TERFS?

@wizzywig Gosh that's shocking

I have to say the level of disability discrimination on here is pretty bad too

I posted once about being pregnant and a single parent etc. Mentioned I had a disability and it was all "don't you think your selfish having another baby when you have a disability "
Not that I should have to justify it but actually able bodied ex is the one who isn't pulling his financial weight not me? But carry on

Then those women have the right to not go to those sessions. The pool would then have to look at their business case and decide whether they want to have separate sessions and the exceptions available in law may allow them to do so if they can make a case.

What’s staggering is that it seems perfectly acceptable to make a blanket statement about not having transgender people do this or that, but drop every other protected characteristic in and there would be an outcry.

And before anyone claims it’s different. Try looking back in the not too distant history to find the accepted reasons why it was absolutely fine not to want to mix with certain groups of people.

Staggering also that MN allows these sorts of reasons to be viciously stated (mainly in the “feminism” board) but would not allow the same discussion on any other protected group.

I know a few lesbian groups that exclude men who say they are women. The organisers get a lot of shit for it. Most people will not put up with this amount of shit so just cave in.

When the definition of female is being ignored, it seems clear that they are being discriminated against.

There are spaces, toilets and access available for people with disabilities for a reason exactly the same way that there are spaces reserved for females for a reason.

But now governments are coming along and saying, actually, you know what, those spaces weren't really needed so we're taking them away. How is that right and where is the Equality ?

LadyoftheLoch, there's been a couple of interesting scottish focused things come out re both of those subjects recently:

NHS lothian: "“Unless the practitioner consented, to exclude them from carrying out female-only care would be a breach of section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and a criminal offence. There are also restrictions under the Equality Act 2010 around requiring staff to disclose their gender identity and staff selection on this basis."

I.E. whilst an individual woman could object at the point she's faced with a transwoman, there's no mechanism for them to ensure they actually get booked in with a woman. NHS Lothian can't require their staff to disclose their gender identity and can't exclude them from carrying out smear tests and the like even where a patient requests a female.

I can't lay my hands on it just now but there was a recent-ish question to the Scottish Parliament which resulted in it being confirmed that either refuges or rape crisis centres (it might indeed have been both) would not get funding without having an appropriate LGBT inclusion policy. The responses from various refuge organisations to the SG consultation were also done at a head office level without consulting women on the ground, many of whom were outraged.

I'd also say there is a massive difference between a TW accessing a rape crisis centre as a patient and being present as a member of staff providing services to women. In an ideal world I think there should probably be distinct rape crisis facilities for TW (and indeed TM) simply because their needs may be somewhat different both physically and emotionally after a rape or assault - but funding being what it is that might not be possible.

@HuntIdeas
There are places that cater for Muslim women by having men free swimming sessions

Yabbers it is different.

Because according to the Act the population have the right to sex segregated spaces.

But now they are saying that sex is undefined.

Therefore those spaces are no longer needed. Even though they are allowed in law.

So yes, it's very different. It's taking away the very protection that the Act claims to provide.

BrilliantDarling what about the transwoman with a penis who claim to be female and wants to join in?

wizzywig the lack of childcare access for children with disabilities is dreadful. I know that locally it is a minefield for childcare providers who try to obtain extra funding/support to enable them to provide care for children whose needs they can't support with their existing resources/facilities- the council are useless at both paying and answering contact...

I'm not suggesting in any way that children with SN should be excluded, but the support structures that would allow small childcare providers to take them on just aren't there in many areas even where the provider is willing.

And before anyone claims it’s different. Try looking back in the not too distant history to find the accepted reasons why it was absolutely fine not to want to mix with certain groups of people.

But none of the previous issues in history are remotely comparable. They don't bear any resemblance to what's going on now.

Not in prison they can't. You can't turn to the prison staff and say 'I've chosen not to serve my sentence because there's a man in this prison'.
They can request to be housed in a separate wing and in a separate prison, as any prisoner can if they have a reason to. Given the incredibly small number of transgender prisoners who have been housed in female prisons with a tiny number of problems, it seems this is just another red herring argument. The few high profile cases of problems have not been shown to be a problem with policy but of failings within the prison management system.

Funny how all of a sudden you are so concerned about the risks to female prisoners from transgender people, and yet women (and men) in the prison system are raped and abused by prison officers both male and female in alarmingly high numbers and no-one seems to bat an eyelid.

You know who is also at risk of attack in the prison system? Transgender people. You happy just to have them thrown to the wolves because of something they can’t control.

And refusing medical tests, whilst it may be a choice, is hardly fair on women either because then they're missing out through no fault of their own.
Sigh. You don’t have to miss out. You simply request another test with a different person. Hysterical much?

Yes because a raped woman can just go somewhere else
Rape crisis centres are one of the situations where exceptions can be lawfully made. You want to suggest these places are crawling with transgender counsellors? No, they aren’t and as with every other situation, a woman has a right to say “I need to see someone else”

Of course rights compete. Stupid to assert otherwise.
Ageism is a particular problem at the moment. The thing is, in getting so self-righteous, we forget common sense.

While we focus on rights instead of responsibility and on individuals rather than the bigger picture we will continue to fight each other.

Can you define the word 'sex' that is a protected characteristic Yabbers?

Hysterical much? Now that is the mark of intelligent debate. Sexist much?

But none of the previous issues in history are remotely comparable. They don't bear any resemblance to what's going on now.

Go do some reading. Pretty much any discrimination is based on perceived risk and fear.

Yabbers, let's say a woman requests a female HCP for her smear (other tests and treatments are available but it's the easy example!)

She turns up, nurse comes in to the room. Woman does not realise that they are actually a TW - maybe doesn't twig straight away but realises during test, maybe finds out afterwards, maybe never finds out. That woman has had her right to informed consent taken away - she requested a female HCP, and whilst some would include TW in that definition many would not.

It shouldn't be up to the individual woman at the point of accessing her medical care to refuse an individual HCP.

Now that is the mark of intelligent debate. Sexist much?
As is that. You don’t have to be a woman to be hysterical.

It may be illegal, but I understand why childminders may not want to take on a child with SEN. Presumably they can not charge more, but may have to deal with additional challenging behaviour or take on less children to meet that child's needs. Obviously it does depend on the SEN, but if a parent is mentioning it straight off the bat, I would assume that significant adjustments or extra support is required.

They can request to be housed in a separate wing and in a separate prison, as any prisoner can if they have a reason to

So if every female prisoner requests to be transferred away from the male bodied prisoner, what happens? Most likely they're all told 'no, there is nowhere to move you to'. They can't move everyone.

And sometimes the risk is real. Rather than jump on stereotypes as being the lazy perogative of the stupid think of it in terms of shorthand risk assessment - based on experience, (your own or collective), BUT to be reassessed and examined and re-evaluated regularly and when dealing with an individual over whom you have some power.

Does anyone remember the case where a lot of female prisoners did not want someone who identified as a woman in their wing? They eventually plotted to attack them in their cell to get them moved away.
There have also been a number of cases of women getting pregnant in prison because they are in the same wing as someone who identifies as a woman, but has a penis.

Can you define the word 'sex' that is a protected characteristic

Put simply, don’t discriminate against anyone no matter how they present or what is between their legs.

If you don’t like it’s inclusion as a protected characteristic, then go take that up with the powers that be.

It’s not up to me to decide what’s “real” or what isn’t, whether a person is part of one group or another. It is only up to me to make sure I don’t treat them differently based on that.