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?

The EHRC guidance is utter bullshit.

So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right? It’s ALWAYS proportionate to exclude MALES cos they are MALE right? And if a woman does take their male baby in the toilets they are immediately by definition MIXED SEX and must be open to ALL male people right? Otherwise that’s ILLEGAL !

So I guess women with baby boys can’t use the women’s now either.. 🙄🙄 so they’ll have to go to the loos with all the weird trans people 😱😱😱…. ohhhhhh noooo, But wait- isn’t that DISCRIMINATION , because no single sex space is provided for these poor women right ?! So what do we dooooo 🤯🫠🫠🫠.

It doesn’t take many brains to work out what utter bullshit nonsense this guidance is , and the fact that it has absolute nothing to do with any rational interpretation of the law.

”So I guess that means according to the EHRC women can’t take their male babies into the female toilets right?”

What another desperate distraction? How unexpected.

You know, your post is a perfect example of how common sense has gone out of the window here.

In the past, we had women's toilets, which were for women, but by common consent we turned a blind eye to the presence of little boys with their mothers and the occasional transsexual who made a real effort to pass and behaved discreetly and respectfully. There might have been the odd niggle over a transsexual who was too obviously a man or a boy who was too old to be with his mother in the ladies, but in general there was a rule and there were the unspoken exceptions to the rule.

Now, because of the TQ+ lobby and their ridiculous demands that bearded trans woman Alex must be able to use the ladies' toilets, and people like you frothing what about this and what about that completely unlikely scenario, we are in a situation where the Supreme Court and the EHRC have had to go, "Listen, knobheads, the rule is no penises in the women's toilets, and since you're apparently all too stupid to manage the exceptions to the rule like civilised adults, there are no exceptions to the rule, got it?"

I said men. Babies are not men.

Do you know what a man is?

The general policy for single sex facilities is the children under 8 are allowed in regardless of their sex. I’m sure that will remain so you can stop panicking about the babies.

Oh dear.

Okay before you just looked stubbornly wrong, now you look petulantly silly. And definitely not what anyone would look to for a 'rational interpretation of the law'.

You seem very shocked at what the EHRC guidance says, yet it was completely predictable that it'd say what it does from what the judgement said. You've been strongly arguing on MN for over a week that the law says something different than it does, and that the judgement says something different than it does, and telling others that they were wrong about what it says.

But from your reaction to the guidance, I genuinely think you've never actually read the judgement.

Maybe you should.

common sense has gone out of the window here.

we can certainly agree on that. What I wrote is literally the consequence of what you all are insisting is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It’s utterly absurd .

I am certainly the last person in this conversation responsible for this absurdity.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom You beat me to it! Yes years ago, women always allowed pre pubescent boys into women's loos and likewise turned a blind eye to those men in a dress who clearly yearned to be women. We made no comment and were "kind" because we knew they desperately wanted to be a woman.
However it has now gone too far. I would not want to be a 14 year old girl in the women's toilets with a bearded man. Men should absolutely NOT compete in women's sports...that was an absolute disgrace. So by going "too far", they have shot themselves in the foot. The trans lobby only has itself to blame I'm afraid

Sigh.

It doesn't really matter what we insist is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It doesn't really matter what you insist is the correct interpretation of the SC judgement. It matters what the EHRC insist is the correct interpretation of the SC And they are saying, no transwomen in women's single sex spaces.

That's the sound of the point whooshing over your head.

@Lostcat What would be the point of the judgment if, having determined that a woman is someone who was born female, a man is allowed to access women's facilities?
Also what is your stance on men competing in women's sports?

So now you’re worried about the safety of children?

The guidance talks about MEN. It doesn’t use the word ‘males’. That is your word that you used to introduce the absurdity.

I can pretty much 100% promise you that no premises will get sued for allowing male babies into the ladies toilets. So you can stop worrying about going into the men’s and finding hordes of babies crawling around trying to work out what to do.

As you know the ruling and the guidance is about keeping men (regardless of identity) out of women’s spaces. It’s been issued nice and quickly because inexplicably the trans activists are running around screaming that they don’t understand the judgement. Even though it’s really really clear. Have you read it yet?

That you believe women and girls having our hard won single sex spaces for safety, privacy and dignity is 'disgraceful' is sad. It's your posts that are disgraceful.
Women are human and have human rights. Deal with it!

I've certainly undergone tests that confirm conditions that can only occur in a female.

Positive pregnancy tests, smear tests, cervical biopsy, external and internal ultrasound to examine ovaries...

Yeah right. Those who lose arguments always resort to moral grandstanding.

<Chef's kiss>

It was indeed ! On so many levels.

As they say, in an abusive situation the most dangerous time is when you leave a ‘relationship’.

This was a very one sided relationship - more of a stalking (of women by men claiming to be us) I guess, but the incoherent rage appears to be free flowing now.

That insane decent into emojis and CAPITAL LETTERS is cracking me up 🤣

It's very simple. Adult human males stay out of female spaces. Let women deal with babies and young children.

To what extent do you think men should be treated as women in society and law?

Let's review the incoherent nonsense of the EHRC interpretation of the Supreme Court judgement once more.

• "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"

So if you are providing a single sex service, it must be based on “birth sex”. Therefore, you must exclude all people who do not match that “birth sex” otherwise you would be unfairly discriminating against some people of that birth sex and not others. That is not allowed, and there is no basis for treating people differently on the basis of gender presentation - gender presentation is an irrelevance for the purposes of excluding people of the "wrong" birth sex, from same sex services.

HOWEVER, you can exclude some people of the “matching” “birth sex” from the same facilities and not others, and, that’s not discrimination at all!! Oh no! In that case gender presentation is an entirely relevant and appropriate basis for excluding some people and not others, in their access to single-sex services.

MAKE IT MAKE SENSE

Great mantrum.

Let me put it more succinctly and in a more sober tone (if that pleases you all):

The guidance declares that it would be arbitrarily discriminatory and therefore unlawful to exclude some individuals of the “wrong” birth sex (e.g. transwomen) and not others (e.g. men) from single sex (e.g. female) spaces. (if there’s justification to exclude any, there must be justification to exclude all, regardless of gender (presentation) - so the logic goes).

However, it is conversely not considered discriminatory to exclude just some individuals of the “correct” birth sex (e.g. trans men) from access to these same (female) facilities. In the latter case gender (presentation) is an relevant factor according to which people may be treated differently in their access to single-sex facilities, and this time with legitimate (non-discriminatory) cause.

There is no sense to be made of these rules other than from the perspective of wanting to exclude people from public services for simply expressing the "wrong" alignment of sex and gender presentation - i.e. for being gender non-conforming.

Oh wow. The delusions grow ever stronger.

There is sense in it if you consider the purpose of that space from the point of view of the vast majority of the people that space is actually for, instead of seeing literally everything through the lens of "trans people as main characters".