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?

I appreciate there is no obligation to provide same sex female toilets but if you say you do ,you cant include males otherwise its not a female toilet.

yup

I'm not asking about biological men preying on women. I'm asking how do we tell the difference between a biological man and a biological man who identifies as not a man? What is it that separates the 2?

I don't care about policing the choices of trans men. I care about keeping men out of women's spaces. This stuff isn't difficult and the more this drags on with these stupid attempts at gotchas, the less patience people are having for it.

The law doesn’t define “women”, it simply says that for the purposes of interpreting provisions in the EA , where the word “woman” is used in the Act, it means people of the “female sex” “at birth”, and “sex” refers to “biological sex” (sex at birth).

The EA prohibits discrimination and protects equality for people with certain protected characteristics- sex is one- gender reassignment is another. The judgement clarifies that “sex” means “biological sex”. So women are protected from discrimination on the basis of “sex”. Trans women may also be protected from discrimination as women, to the extent that others perceive them to be women ; meanwhile , they are also protected from discrimination on the grounds of being trans (gender reassignment).

When it comes to providing facilities and services to women, it may be possible for a provider to restrict that service / facility to women-female-at-birth only if they chose to do so (I.e. excluding trans women even if they have a gender recognition cert) if it can be justified that excluding trans women in that case is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
It doesn’t mean they have to do this, it just means they may be able to do so.

I agree. I think the entitled, angry male behavior is very clear to see.

if you say you do ,you cant include males

This is false. A provider can absolutely have a male toilet and a female toilet in their facility, and they can allow trans people to use the toilet as they chose according to their gender. The judgement does not provide a blanket prohibition of this . It doesn’t

otherwise its not a female toilet.

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to hold it. It doesn’t mean that a provider has to exclude trans women from the female toilet.

Yep.

How I feel about trans men using the mens toilet is the same as I feel about any woman entering potentially dangerous situations - I'd really rather they didn't but that's not my decision to make for them. Men are free to set their own boundaries on their spaces.

Those men coming into designated female spaces, those men who say they just want to pee yet feel the need to actively throw down the gauntlet to women by doing so in women's spaces contrary to the clear 'no' - they're the problem. It absolutely infuriates me that some women think they're entitled to override that.

Oh hang on, Ive got a picture of this!

I'd love to say that answers my question but unfortunately I'm still confused🤔

you are struggling with perspective-taking and understanding that not everyone sees things the same way as you. That’s understandable, it’s human.

EHRC interim guidance:

It is not compulsory for services that are open to the public to be provided on a single-sex basis or to have single-sex facilities such as toilets. These can be single-sex if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and they meet other conditions in the Act. However, it could be indirect sex discrimination against women if the only provision is mixed-sex.

In workplaces and services that are open to the public:

• trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
• in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities
• however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use
• where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided
• where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men

The EHRC says otherwise:

trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

The EHRC is beyond a disgrace

So if lostcat is right (which I don’t believe they are) then what is all the whining about?

Yes I know.
They are wrong. They have totally misappropriated the judgement.

I'm quoting myself as still wondering if anyone has an answer?

Because of how it’s being interpreted and already implemented by some institutions- see the stuff from the EHRC just posted

That's really useful. It's stronger than I thought it was.

Yes

but according to your posts nothing has changed and nothing will change

no one has implemented anything yet as most are waiting for the guidance, which cannot come a minute too soon imho

so why the complaining?

The EHRC is completely spot on and quite literally following the letter of the law. Is it illegal to allow trans identified men into the women's toilet? No. Is it potentially unlawful and discriminatory? Yes. The EHRC interim guidance is perfectly in line with the judgement and the Equality Act. Importantly, it's also perfectly in line with all the women who have been saying all along, this is the law. And all the organisations, schools and workplaces who also provided single sex spaces and services before they were Stonewalled.

The public body charged with writing guidance so that businesses and services can implement the law, as clarified by the highest court in the land, says it's so.

And they're wrong, and you're right?

• *trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities and must be open to all users of the opposite sex
• in some circumstances the law also allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use the men’s facilities, and trans men (biological woman) not to be permitted to use the women’s facilities*

this would actually be laughable if it wasn’t so disgraceful .