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?

from the point of view of the vast majority of the people that space is actually for

From the point of view of gender-conforming people you mean? Because they are the main characters right?

Heaven forbid that equalities and human rights legislation should be logical and not arbitrarily discriminate against minority groups! Main character syndrome I say! They should stop whining!

Have you still not read the judgement? It is explained there how this could be lawful discrimination.

It's so a rape support group can lawfully exclude all those 6 foot tall, bearded muscley passing transmen (which gender ideologues have all apparently got as friends ) because the traumatised women in the group would perceive them as male and be triggered. It's hard on all those hefty bearded transmen I agree, but I suppose it's the 'find out' in FAFO.

Here is sex matters explaining it for you too:

The judgment describes how service providers offering a single-sex service are also exempt from the prohibition against gender-reassignment discrimination (as long as their conduct is proportionate). For example, a “trans man” (a woman living in the male gender) can be lawfully excluded from a female-only service, without this amounting to gender-reassignment discrimination.

https://sex-matters.org/posts/publications/supreme-court-judgment-summary-and-practical-advice/

You really need to read the judgement though.

I'm not sure how having toilet facilities just for biological women discriminates against men who wish to be women, as long as there are other facilities in which they can relieve themselves?
As women wannabes, they should actually understand why women want a women only space.
What 14 year old girl on her period is going to want to share facilities with a man? And be embarrassed as she exits the toilet to see a man at the sink?
Surely because trans women are so attuned to women's sensibilities they should understand this?
And you haven't answered my question regarding men in women's sport

"In some circumstances"

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand when that might be the case, or how to interpret judgement, the law, or the guidelines. It is incredibly straightforward.

It makes perfect sense.

If it is reasonable for female people to object to the presence of male people in their spaces, it is also reasonable for them to object to the presence of someone who has deliberately altered their appearance to the extent that nobody can tell they are not male.

In reality I think very few people will fall into this category and those who genuinely do will probably continue to use spaces for the opposite sex unnoticed.

Sweetie, the judgement is about SEX, not gender.

Since you haven't understood the very very first thing, perhaps you could stop trying to transplain to the rest of us?

Gotta love @Lostcat. If there was a medal for persistence, they’d be a shoe in for the gold. The bat shit takes are comedy gold. It’s like they’re a toddler fighting sleep. Bless

I don’t think you are a good judge on coherency, by the way.

And at this point you sound incoherent and simply flinging stuff out hoping something sticks.

Anyhow. If a person has taken such steps as to have extreme body modifications that could cause some people of their own sex distress through believing they are the opposite sex, then they can be excluded. Of course, their exclusion is probably going to be rare such as women’s refuges needing to exclude a female who has taken testosterone, with a phalloplasty and presents as male.

This has been long recognised as an issue, even amongst the female people with transgender identities who come and discuss issues with us on threads. They recognise the issue. Yet they get weaponised by people such as yourself to be weak arsed gotchas. They on the other hand, take responsibility for the extreme body modifications that they chose.

I am glad though you are asking for clarification for the guidance as it seems you are confused.

The testing done in elite sports sorts out the men with DSDs which allow them to present as a woman - that's what they are for. Semenya is a man with a male DSD, for example.

Gosh, so let’s see. Some people who choose to undergo extreme body modifications that means that as a female they now have male body cues, act in a way that allows service providers to legitimately discriminate against them.

For day and days now we have been bombarded with weaponised threats about these over 6ft tall, bearded female people entering female single sex spaces. We have patiently explained time and time again that the female people who have transgender identities have already discussed these issue with us (apparently none of us ’listen’ to transgender people!) and told us how they acknowledge their choices and find alternative solutions.

But here you are again, performing outrage at what you perceive is an inconsistency. There is no inconsistency here. Extreme transgender activists recognised the dilemma when they weaponised female people against female people.

Where necessary to protect those who need to be away from people with male body cues, even female people with male body cues, laws had to include some provision.

Exactly this.

Even the trans man who did an AMA on here and said that he lives "stealth" and that most people do not know he was born female said he doesn't usually use men's toilets and generally prefers to find single occupation or unisex toilets.

These enormous 6ft bearded trans men who completely pass and will now be excluded from both men's and women's toilets are a figment of trans activists' imaginations.

And I also suspect that trans men who live "stealth" and have not had a phalloplasty tend to avoid swimming pools, changing rooms and sports in general. Because those are precisely the types of situations in which men in that space are likely to notice that they don't have a penis and that could put them at risk.

It’s not the EHRC’s fault that some people have chosen to alter their appearance so drastically that it could upset people that are traumatised or vulnerable - let’s face it - we are mainly talking about places like rape crisis centres/Hospitals etc.

Maybe you could have a think about a reasonable solution that meets EVERYONES needs rather than just those of men who identify as women? Just a thought.

Let us remember that all these performances are meant to cloud our judgement and convince us that male people should be welcome in female people’s single sex spaces.

That we are supposed to think that the EA guidelines are flawed and unworkable and that people’s beliefs about themselves should be treated as material reality.

The desperation and thrashing about for an cogent argument is clear. I dread to think what the EHRC email inbox will be like on Monday morning!

Here is an employment barrister’s take on it. It might be helpful for those confused still.

https://x.com/itsdavegreen/status/1916038497011462501?s=46

And here the BBC sought clarification.

Equality watchdog issues interim guidance on single-sex spaces www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyw9qjeq8po

“The guidance also states that "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".”

“When asked to clarify this, the EHRC pointed to a section of the Supreme Court ruling stating that trans men could be excluded from women's facilities "where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken" in the context of a women-only service.”

Looks like it has been clarified for those who were determined to misinterpret it. Again.

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"

misscarlett has it

this is a tra/ stonewall fuckup

yes and this would be completely fine and compatible with an understanding of the judgements as permitting exclusion of trans people from using services according to their gender, where proportionate (as has always been the case)., it is completely incompatible with a view of the judgement as mandating exclusion in all circumstances as per the incoherent EHRC guidance

What part of "single sex" are you struggling with?

Look love

i honestly admire your your desperation to support those you feel are are being mistreated

but you are do wrong on this 💞

This part:

the guidance mandates that where-ever such services are provided they must be restricted according to birth sex. The logic posits that in admitting some individuals of the “opposite” birth sex (e.g. trans people) the service would cease to be “single sex” and must therefore be open to all members of the opposite sex to avoid being discriminatory.

Meanwhile, however, the guidance asserts that trans individuals may additionally be excluded from the provisions designated for their birth sex. According to the judgement, the latter would be allowable in circumstances whereby the ‘gender reassignment process [had] given [the person] an appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the [sex-specific] service being provided’.

In other words, according to the EHRC guidance, it is arbitrarily discriminatory, and therefore unlawful, to exclude some but not all individuals from services that misalign with their birth sex on the basis of gender.

However, it is conversely permissible (and not discriminatory) to exclude some (and not all) individuals from services that align with their birth sex, on the very same basis (of gender).

There is no sense to be made of these provisions other than that they seek to exclude people for simply being gender non-conforming.

The judgement is reasonable and makes sense if read in the way that Lord Sumption asserts (and in the way that the law has always been applied) - that it may be lawful to exclude trans women from some female spaces where this is a proportion means of achieving a legitimate aim. It makes no sense at all from a perspective that reads the judgement as mandating the exclusion of trans women from all female spaces in all circumstances.

The EHRC is like something out of an Orwellian novel.

If transwomen are allowed into a female space, it ceases to be a female space and becomes a mixed-sex space.

Also if you allow some men ('transwomen') into a space, but others, that would be discriminatory to the other men.

It is arbitrarily discriminatory, and therefore unlawful, to exclude some but not all individuals from services that cater to the opposite birth sex on the basis of gender differences.

However, it is conversely permissible (and not discriminatory) to exclude some (and not all) individuals from services that cater to individuals of a shared birth sex, on the basis of gender differences.

So basically you can treat gender non-conforming people differently to other persons with the same birth sex, only for the purposes of excluding them from services (but not for the purposes of including them in services).

And this is not at all discriminating against gender non-conforming people. Mmm hmmm.