... ... 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.

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?

Nobody ever has any right to have sex with another person. There is not and never will be such a thing. Every human on this earth has the right to decide who they want to have sex with. What you are suggesting is that there is an implied right to rape, which is a terrifying and non-existent thing.

A white girl might say she never wants to have sex with black men. That makes her racist. But it still doesn’t mean she has to have sex with black men, or anyone at all. Every woman is entitled to complete body autonomy, even if the reasons for the decisions they make are motivated by racism, ableism, transphobia, ageism or whatever.

@Ladyoftheloch I think it's disgusting and lesbophobic to even suggest that a homosexual woman is transphobic for not being attracted to someone of the opposite sex (despite the fact that they might wish to be otherwise). Homosexual means being same-sex attracted, NOT same-gender attracted.

sphinxa - I think the casual ageism and disability comments are the worst. Casual racism seems to be picked up on more than ageism and disability (despite a vigorous posse of posters denying racism)

The ageism could, I suppose, be the arrogance of youth - but the disability assumptions and comments are profoundly disturbing

Many more deletions for troll hunting than for ageist or disability comments! Difficult to report things which are entrenched attitudes permeating threads / posts rather than a specific infringement of posting rules

Sexual orientation is also a protected characteristic so how can it be transphobic for a lesbian not to want sex with a male body?

I agree that even suggesting it is homophobic.

@sphinxa - maybe start a new thread headed 'casual ageism and disablism on Mimsnet' or something!

As you said.. sex is a protected characteristic and as a result, women should not have to compromise their safety, privacy and dignity in changing rooms, toilets, refuges, hospitals and prisons. Or give up their rights such as the word 'woman' being deemed offensive or not defined correctly, which essentially undermines all protective laws and guidelines.

this

sphinxa - I think the casual ageism and disability comments are the worst. Casual racism seems to be picked up on more than ageism and disability (despite a vigorous posse of posters denying racism)
Not when, just as a for instance, it’s racism against Filipinas. As in the recent AIBU ‘Age gap’ thread recently. Not casual racism, blatant racism. Allowed to stand and completely unchallenged. Disgusting.

YANBU at all

I’d also like to remind people that Freedom of Thought, Religion and Belief is protected under Article 9 of the HRA and the Right to Free Speech under Article 10.

I agree that there needs to be much more focus on the fact that Age and Disability are protected characteristics. Agism, especially towards women is fucking appalling. Discrimination towards people with disabilities, especially ones which are not visible is really unacceptable.

I don’t like the changing rooms at centre parcs and Marks and Spencer’s and Topshop can fuck off with their letting men in the women’s changing room policy.

My right to single sex spaces is protected under the Equality Act .

Thing is, members of the public in their private lives are not bound by the Equality Act and can say and think whatever they want provided they don’t break the law.

You are free to stereotype, be prejudiced or discriminate against or in favour of anyone in your private life. You are, for instance, free to disagree strongly with homosexuality, transgenderism or Islam. You can say all three of these things are abhorrent and you are free to say this. Thank goodness for free speech.
“No one has the right not to be offended”

@StreetwiseHercules @PlainSpeakingStraightTalking

I know of grants made so that women's groups can hire a swimming pool to have private use. Ie so that no men were there. This was due to the women attending the group having certain religious backgrounds or experience of trauma. Just because you don't believe it to be so or know someone who is unaffected, it doesn't make it not true.

What I find most astounding about transactivists is that they are fighting so hard to remove the rights of the very group they claim to want to be a part of.

Yabbers I think the issue is which 'side' you think has privilege. You clearly think transwomen are the discriminated against party and others think women are.

I assume (I could be wrong) that you have no issue with sex-segregated spaces generally. With, for example, a housing scheme for Black youth or South Asian women? Or a group for Black probation officers. Just a few examples... what you have an issue with is the dominant group excluding the discriminated against group. Am I right?

Where you differ is that you think women aren't the discriminated against group. But overwhelmingly, people with vaginas are at risk from violence at the hands of people with penises. And not from other people with vaginas. Hence prison segregation.

"What I find most astounding about transactivists is that they are fighting so hard to remove the rights of the very group they claim to want to be a part of."

Yes, indeed, @MidniteScribbler - they want to be women, but without any of the pesky reminders (ie. women who are genetically and biologically female) that they can't change their biology, no matter how much surgical and medical intervention they have.

If someone is genuinely gender dysphoric and/or really wants to live as the other gender, I think they should be able to do so, without losing any of their rights and free from discrimination, bigotry, or violence. And I feel genuine sympathy for them - for their physical, mental and emotional struggles. I have known at least one person who transitioned, and they were a lovely person - I felt safe around them, and I know they respected women and women's rights and safety.

But there is a loud and active group within the trans community that wants all the rights of women, and does not care one jot if those rights come at the expense of biologically female women (I refuse to use the cis word).

As Shon Faye said - women, enjoy your erasure. Actually, she said 'enjoy ur erasure' - but just typing that makes me itch!

SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius

Very well put. I totally agree.

Religion is a tricky one because a) it's a choice and b) how one interprets ones religious duties varies and is also a choice. If you choose the most extreme forms of religion, you cannot necessarily expect the world to reorganize itself to suit you.

YABVU
I agree everybody should have protections up to a point but when one is at the expense of the others we know its gone too far.
Every woman/girl/lesbian/Muslim etc has the right to say no to a man in their safe space, take this away and its a disaster waiting to happen.

I think that's a big part of it SDTG. I have two MTW trans friends. Neither of them would ever consider changing in the women's change rooms (they swim at a large swimming complex that has some individual cubicles which are separate from the male/female change rooms). The thought of ever going to a 'female only' swimming session (obviously aimed at Muslim women who are unable to swim when males are present) would never even enter their minds. When we did go to a water park that only had male and female change rooms, they dried off poolside and wrapped a towel around themselves to drive home (which we all did, but that might be an Aussie thing not to worry about changing before you get home - lining up your towel so you don't touch the hot car seat and losing your thongs under the brake pedal are just part of life!).

They take the piss out of themselves regularly, and just get on with life. They don't argue 'trans rights' or complain that one of us might have a whinge about having our period. They are just living their lives, living how they feel best suits them, but they are under no illusions that they are biological 'women'. They self identify themselves as 'transwomen', not 'women'. They are actually very vocal that some of the transactivists are actually ruining things for the transsexuals who just want to get on with their lives and live in peace. They actually would prefer no attention at all, as then they could dress and live how they want, without the scrutiny and criticism that more vocal people are getting.

Religion is a tricky one because a) it's a choice and b) how one interprets ones religious duties varies and is also a choice. If you choose the most extreme forms of religion, you cannot necessarily expect the world to reorganize itself to suit you.

I think that the problem is that we need to get away from 'entitlement' and go back to 'rights'. A group has every right to say that at 10am on Thursday there will be a group for Korean speakers meeting to discuss modern Korean literature. You would look like an idiot if you showed up and couldn't speak or read Korean. Would anyone say it is discriminatory for that group to meet?

Should an Alcoholics Anonymous group allow people who have never drunk to join? If that person was a Muslim who doesn't believe in drinking, would it be discrimination to not let that person into the group if they wanted to come and lecture on why alcohol was bad?

Sometimes there are groups that exclude a certain percentage of the population, and it's not discrimination, it's just about providing a place for like minded individuals to meet for support and friendship. That can range from the German Shepherd Dog Walking Group not accepting someone who only has Chihuahua's, or the Lemonade Lovers group not accepting someone who wants to bring a can of Coke to their meeting.

No one would go into a Korean Book Group and demand that they only speak English and read English books. Everyone would, quite rightly, agree that the person was being ridiculous and needs to find a group that supports their needs.

Groups like the Muslim women who book a pool session for one hour a week to allow them to swim should not be vilified or told they must accept a transwomen with a penis. One hour a week they are able to go, so anyone with a penis can use the other how ever many hours in the week to swim. The transwomen are still at more of an advantage than the women who can't swim whilst men are there (regardless of what you think of their religion or the rules they choose to follow). It's ok to say 'give us some time', and if the transperson had any shred of empathy, they wouldn't demand access to that one hour per week when they have access to every other hour the pool is open.

There is making sure your rights are met, and not being an arsehole.

Anyone who demands to join that one hour per week is just trying to make a point, and is being a total arsehole, regardless of what they have between their legs.

"If you choose the most extreme forms of religion, you cannot necessarily expect the world to reorganize itself to suit you."

Since single sex changing rooms have been around for so many years, @BarbarianMum, I don't think that wanting them to stay single sex is 'expecting the world to reorganise itself to suit you'. And if Muslim women (or other women) were demanding that all swimming sessions to be single sex, that would be very unreasonable - but they aren't asking for that - and surely, wanting a weekly single sex session for women, that excludes people with penises, isn't too demanding.

I wasnt commenting on single sex changing rooms, I was commenting on what happens when protected characteristics come into conflict, as per the OP.

As it happens I am fully supportive of single sex changing room because men (or people w penis' if you prefer) are often and unpredictably dangerous to women (people w vaginas). I just dont think you should be able to order society on the basis of extreme religious views. So, for example, I wouldn't support sex segregation in buses because in some religions men and women may not sit together.

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.

We used to have Community childminders who were trained and had the facilities to care for most types of SN.
Unfortunately, Austerity has put paid to this training and funding and a lot of childminders don't feel comfortable in their ability to care for particular needs, although some childminders still do so.

Have you tried the nurseries? What do they say?

Religion trumps sex- no women bishops

The first female bishop was ordained in 2014. There have been others since.

The Masons in the uk is for men only. No women.

Except transwomen. Because whilst they firmly believe that transwomen are women, they make exceptions for women who used to be men.

But no women, oh no, no women, just transwomen and men.

They make it up as they go along.