To think we should all boycott John Lewis until they respect their female employees

[Lovelyview]

https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/resignation-letter-from-a-john-lewis

This is a letter from a female employee of John Lewis's Cheadle branch. John Lewis told its female employees that they have to share toilets and locker rooms with trans identifying men. The employee says this is having a terrible effect especially on colleagues who have experienced trauma relating to men or who have religious reasons to not want to share a space with someone who is the opposite sex.

Oh I agree overall, my comment definitely wasn’t intended as a dig at your post, more a general musing but your quote was a handy “hook” to hang it on. In general I prefer to refer to TW as men because that’s what they are (and there’s at least one post on this thread that showed how easy it is for people to be confused between which terms are for the men-who-want-to-be-women and vice versa).

There's actually a poll which shows that dependent on region between a quarter and a third of the population in England think a "trans woman" is a biological female person identifying as a man.

"I mean they call them "trans women", not me. I never use that term unless I'm responding to someone who has."

This is me too. If I have to, I will use 'transwoman'. I used to use it until I realised where the language that people politely used was used to directly harm female people.

SoundTheSirens, some of us have made decisions that allow us to continue on this board.

So as to not be deleted, I have chosen to use 'male people' and 'female people'' This is due to having posts with evidence deleted because someone was claiming that it was transphobic to use woman / girl or man / boy. It is fucking cumbersome. It keeps it also impersonal (hence, not deleted).

On the other hand, it has been very useful in making it very clear the sex of the person I am referring and just how obfuscating the language demands are.

I have had so many posters tell me just how offensive my posts are because I call male people, 'male people'. Sometimes they slip up and accuse me of using the term 'man' when I clearly have not. That shows more about them than it does me.

I don't think those who make those accusations realise just how much they undermine their own arguments and prompt those reading along to think ' .... oh, hang on....'.

@Dumbledoreslemonsherbets · 29/08/2024 18:53
The last time I was in jl the toilets were labeled women and men. No information that they were all mixed sex. That's consumer fraud. It's like saying a sandwich is nut free whilst in fact having nuts in.

Felicitous choice of analogy, in the circs.

Trans Women do NOT have a right to be in female-only spaces:

'Special exceptions exist in the Equality Act to allow service providers to lawfully exclude people born male from female-only spaces. All males can be lawfully excluded, even members of the male sex who self-identify as women and even males who have legally transitioned to female.'

Excerpt from: https://fairplayforwomen.com/changing_rooms/ on the Equality Act .

I believe that most transwomen do not WANT to be anywhere where their presence would make (potentially) vulnerable women uncomfortable in order to feel affirmed.

The fact that transwomen may have been using female spaces without challenge A. doesn't make it legal and B. probably says more about how intimidated women and girls may feel challenging someone they believe to be male.

Frankly, you're being so quick to jump to the 'transphobia' trope is typical and part of the problem, although I imagine it is very much by design. Many will simply feel too intimidated to challenge a transwoman, especially in a state of undress.

No, @BrightDog , you are getting it round the wrong way.

Trans women have a right to be in women’s loos, as @DadJoke has said.

There is an ability (which the EHRC has mentioned in its guidance) and which utilises carve outs in the EA10 to exclude trans women from single sex spaces- but only where it is legitimate and proportionate to do so.

So what you are looking to do when you want trans women excluded from single sex spaces is to utilise that carve out. In which case the exclusion must be legitimate and proportionate.

Thing is @ElleWoods15 that it has to be proportionate to exclude any males. Once you exclude any males you can exclude all. It really is misunderstood but the same justification works for all males. Allowing transwomen is technically discrimination against other males.

..but it is of course legitimate on the grounds of safety if not well-being and dignity?

The problem surely is that most women and girls don't wish to be confrontational or labelled?

I’m not sure where the ‘of course’ comes from there. I think you’re trying to imply that it necessarily follows that ‘well-being and dignity’ require that trans women should be excluded. It does not follow.

There needs to be a legitimate reason for the specific exclusion, and additionally that needs to be proportionate.

And few of the women on here shy away from being confrontational so I’m not sure what your final sentence means.

I think it is widely understood that JL could exclude male people from the toilets and changing rooms using the exceptions under the EA2010. JL chooses not to.

Just like Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre had the option to use the exceptions. They actually published the job description that mentioned the exceptions. They then chose, with full knowledge, to hire a male person with a gender identity of 'female' for the role. Which I suspect, created a case for discrimination for any other male to claim they were unfairly excluded.

You know gender reassignment is a protected characteristic, right?

Without a GRC they're still just men with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Single sex spaces rely on sex as a protected characteristic, not "gender".

In your opinion.

It may be my opinion that single sex spaces aren't based on "gender". It's not my opinion that without a GRC the current legal position is that "trans women" are men for the purpose of the protected characteristic of sex, which is the only legal basis for protected single sex spaces. It's a fact that recent judgments in English and Scottish law have found this to be the case.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/news/statement-following-lady-haldanes-opinion-petition-women-scotland-ltd-judicial

"We welcome this judgment which confirms that the effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate is to change a person’s legal sex, including for the purposes of the Equality Act."

I can elaborate why this demonstrates that, if anyone is not clear.

But basically, the effect of a GRC would not be to "change a person's sex" with relation to the Equality Act, if all you had to do already was claim the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to be considered "female" (or male obvs) under the protected characteristic of sex.

In most cases female sex in the EA refers to biological sex, but this judgment states that it also refers to those biological males with a GRC. Only those males.

The Haldane judgment get round the requirements for legitimacy and proportionality @Ereshkigalangcleg. Soz.

You'll have to explain what you mean.

Or don't. Up to you. But your comment doesn't make much sense to me.

Possibly a me problem, so feel free to clarify or not!

Well, after Stonewall’s announcement this week to not take on anymore schools or colleges, Good Law Project has announced they won’t be doing more trans law projects from 2025.

x.com/berk_hamstead/status/1830990411965333702?s=46&t=HTxp6zC_d4GZ2FFv4a-YeQ

“The GoodLawProject has sent an email to subscribers, announcing that they're stepping back from trans-related legal cases from next year.”

I suspect that GLP won’t be helping defend any organisation that will be challenged to defend their choice of whether to use exceptions to the EA2010 or not.

Thank you to all the posters who have explained and defended the rights of women so clearly. It really does help - especially when some work places are making these decisions for us (or trying to).

Well, after Stonewall’s announcement this week to not take on anymore schools or colleges, Good Law Project has announced they won’t be doing more trans law projects from 2025.

Interesting!

No, in the Law. Why do you continually get the law wrong?