To be shocked by a transwoman guest on Jeremy Vine today asking a female caller what sex she is - and whether she’s “been tested?”

[AlertMaker]

I genuinely couldn’t believe what I was hearing. A woman called in to make a point and instead of responding to her argument, the guest asked her what sex she was - and even questioned whether she’d been tested to confirm it.

I found it incredibly demeaning and unsettling. AIBU to think this kind of behaviour undermines the whole idea of respectful discussion and actually silences women?

But why say a toilet is for females only, if you allow some males to access the service?

because (thankfully) there is a very sizeable section of the population that doesn’t see things the same way you do. We don’t see trans women as men, however much you insist we must.

But thankfully for reality, the Supreme Court agrees with us.
No blokes are going to be arrested for going into the women's loos in a pub.
But the publican can chuck them out, and if they don't, women can sue the pub for discrimination if they provide men only spaces but no women only spaces, and any pub employees can sue the pub if they don't get single sex loos.
As they say on Twitter, cope and seethe.

But thankfully for reality, the Supreme Court agrees with us

Ah no - they did not offer a judgement on that.

They were simply interpreting the use of specific language in the EA .

But the publican can chuck them out, and if they don't, women can sue the pub for discrimination if they provide men only spaces but no women only spaces, and any pub employees can sue the pub if they don't get single sex loos.

Lol. Quite the fantasy you constructed there.
But it has nothing to do with the recent SC judgement.

(By the way , trans men will still be using the men’s loos).

You see trans women as male ,because thats the truth your particular belief/ opinion about the appropriate use of language.

Why cant that [toilets for females - defined by sex at birth - only] be provided?

The judgement clarifies that it can indeed be provided , if in the given context it can be shown that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
This has always been the case and this remains the case.

However, there is no obligation for providers to exclude trans women from women’s facilities/ spaces.

The SC says its based on biological sex so toilets if they have a ladies sign will indeed exclude tw. As they should. No ifs or buts.

Nope. Thats not the case.

You can't define "female sex" as "people with feminine feels" because that's EXACTLY what the SC ruled.
If you wanted to argue you could have loos for people who have the PC of GR I guess you could try to make that argument but you'd have one for trans identifying males and females, and one for everyone else. That sound like something that would suit? If so you can start up The Crossed Arms and have a Pink And Blue Loo and a Boring People Loo. Enjoy!

It CAN be discriminatory towards women. Which means it COULD be unlawful.

You can't define "female sex" as "people with feminine feels" because that's EXACTLY what the SC ruled.

that’s not at all what they ruled. They simply clarified that for the purposes of interpreting provisions in the EA “women” refers to people “female” “at birth”

Question on toilets if you think men who identify as not men should be allowed in the women's.

How do women tell the difference between a biological man and a biological man who identifies as not a man?

No.

The ruling clarified that it is possible for providers to restrict facilities/ services to women “female” “at birth” if they can demonstrate a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Also if it's unreasonable, why are some organisations simultaneously trying to make toilets gender neutral in the west, but promote female only facilities in places like India and Africa? Is it racism? Women need protected from those men but not these ones?

The law clearly and specifically excludes transwomen from its definition of women. This means that if a service, space or activity is said to be 'for women' transwomen should understand it is not intended for them. In a similar way as I would understand a service that said it was for Muslim women was not for me. This doesn't mean that if I decided to attend I'd be arrested. Nor does it mean the Muslim women would be legally compelled to evict me. However, if they asked me to leave and I refused to, the law would support them, not me and if I made a huge fuss, I probably would be arrested. So basically we have a situation where transwomens ability to use women's toilets rests entirely on the willingness of other people to allow them to. Whether they will or not remains to be seen and will largely depend on venue and its user demographic and preferences.

That's just a rewording of what I said. If providers have facilities that are designated women, but they operate as mixed sex, it may be discriminatory.

And depends on, judging by here and social media, some people learning the difference between illegal and unlawful!

To be honest if implemented in the way y’all are interpreting/ promoting it would be wayyyyy easier for men to just enter women’s toilets to prey on them- they wouldn’t even have to try and pretend to be trans women, they could just declare themselves trans men and go about presenting exactly as they are! 😂

The law clearly and specifically excludes transwomen from its definition of women. This means that if a service, space or activity is said to be 'for women' transwomen should understand it is not intended for them

This is incorrect. Not what “the law” says or does at all.

If trans men wish to continue to use the men’s room then that’s on them. I just don’t want a male bodied person in the ladies.

Interpretation of the law is irrelevant to a man's ability to do just that. Transmen have always been welcomed in women's toilets and as I understand it, already use them if they choose. There has been no case yet of a man claiming to be a transman to access women's toilets as far as I'm aware. If they start to, then I hope those suggesting it are prepared to accept some responsibility for giving them ideas.

But you were all insisting the law mandated enforcement of toilet use based on birth sex? (Where labelled men/ women) So that would also mean that trans women couldn’t use the men’s and would have to use women’s (the law doesn’t enforce this at all of course, thank god).

I think that there are some people still grappling with the incoherence of the concept of what being transgender means. It would explain why we see contradictory and incoherent positions being posted still about ‘you don’t see male people as male people’.

On one hand, people have this belief that if someone believes they are the opposite sex to their material reality, then that person must be right. How? It is impossible that any person is born 'in the wrong body'. It is impossible that any male person can understand what it is to have a female body, which is the only way that a female person is a female person.

But what other groups of people should we be allowing to not only redefine language to suit themselves, but also that we should treat as if their belief is material reality? And there is no evidence at all that being transgender has any biological or neurological markers. It is all based on belief. Belief that has no bearing on material reality.

How about those who sincerely believe they are lizards and get extreme body modifications to suit this? Are they lizards? If not, why?
How about those who sincerely believe that they are not the age they material are? Should we allow those who believe they are children to go back to school? Should we allow those who believe they are 85 to claim aged pension when they are 20?

Yet, this one group of people are centred in policy as being what they say they are? Why? I reckon, it is that other sound bite that we see so much of. The 'but we really don't know that much about the sex categories of humans and we could one day find something'.

And so, because we don't have any evidence that there is anything biological or neurological, all that is left in emotional manipulation. Such as shaming feminists, believing the impossible that male people can be female, and false declarations that male people with transgender identities are not a risk to female people based on nothing but emotional reasoning.

Can you correct my understanding of the law then, and explain to me the way in which woman as defined by the ruling, can include transwomen?

There has been no case yet of a man claiming to be a transman to access women's toilets as far as I'm aware

of course not, because the ridiculous rules that you are demanding be implemented have not been in place. If they did come into place , then it would be far simpler for predatory men so inclined to pretending to be trans people 😆 to pretend to be trans men than to be trans women!

If they did come into place , then it would be far simpler for predatory men so inclined to pretending to be trans people 😆 to pretend to be trans men than to be trans women!

well no as transmen can also be excluded from female spaces