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?

You just keep doubling down.

I suggest that you need to stop repeating White, Whittle and Maugham as they have been wrong on this all along.

According to the draft guidance, gender variant people can be treated differently to other persons with the same birth sex, only for the purposes of excluding them from services.

Yes. You keep doubling down on the same provision.

It has been explained to you many different ways. It is not inconsistent when you consider that in some services, a female person who has taken the deliberate steps of surgery and testosterone may have male body cues that cause some female people distress.

So, overall it is about sex. And legitimate discrimination based on sex. And in some instances it is also, additionally, about sex markers gained through treatment.

I would think you need to seek alternative legal understanding from sources who are not extreme transgender activists.

No. It involves two levels.

First is overall legitimate discrimination. Second involves a person who have chosen to have extreme body modifications so that they have sex markers for the opposite sex.

The ruling allows for the two levels of discrimination to exist and interact. You declaring it is not lawful is really just performative determination to misinterpret now.

You are trying to have it both ways.

Usually it's all "trans identified women are no different to men" and "nobody can change their sex".

Now you are all about using the language of "body modifications" to "sex markers" - to say that it is really "about sex".

What about trans women who have had "body modifications" to change their "sex markers" . Why isn't it really "about sex" for them?

I'll insert your language - it makes no difference to the logic.

The guidance declares that it is discriminatory, and therefore unlawful, to exclude some but not all individuals from services that cater to the opposite birth sex on the basis of body modifications/ sex markers.

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 body modifications/ sex markers.

In other words, according to the draft guidance, transsexual people (who have undergone body modifications to change their sex markers can be treated differently to other persons of the same birth sex, only for the purposes of excluding them from services.

“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.”

I am explaining this paragraph, from
the EHRC in terms that you seem to understand.

I think you are being dishonest now.

You are trying to have it both ways

we aren’t

its not my bloody idea that transmen can, in theory, be banned from womens spaces

“You are trying to have it both ways.”

The law states that people who need particular single sex services can ‘have it both ways’. That is the point.

It is you declaring it is unlawful.

They have really just officially stamped what female transgender people had been doing out of respect for other female people for a long time. You know, the very female people that some posters, not naming anyone, used as weapons to frighten and threaten women into allowing male people to continue to access female single sex spaces.

Yes I understand that provision I have no idea why you keep repeating it.

The point is not that that this provision is unreasonable per se, it is that it is entirely incompatible with the broader logic of the EHRC guidance for the reasons stated.

The EHRC are trying to have it both ways, such that gender variant/ trans people can be treated differently to other persons of the same birth sex, only for the purposes of excluding them from services.

It's a completely discriminatory and entirely unacceptable reading of the law.

People who need single sex services gender conforming cis people can have it both ways. That is the point.

Only if you believe that it's lawful (and morally acceptable) to arbitrarily discriminate against trans/ gender non-conforming people.

That is the point.

Well, it does seem that you don’t understand it at all.

Tell us, are you a discrimination KC?

As I understand it, transmen, on the very rare exceptional circumstances they are excluded from women's facilities will not be excluded because their 'gender' is considered to make them no longer women, but because their appearance may cause alarm. There is no double standard that refuses to see TW as women, yet sees TM as men. TM will be excluded, not because they're men, but because (in exceptional circumstances) they look so much like men they make women feel unsafe.
Tbh, I agree it's going to be problematic as appearance and degree to which a person passes can be subjective, and a TM who wishes to use the women's facilities and is refused may well be able to challenge it unless what constitutes looking enough like a man to cause alarm is given some firm criteria. Regardless, that will be an issue for those women to fight. Its makes not a bit of difference to the position of TW.

It is part of the legitimate discrimination that has been allowed under the EA.

Are you a discrimination KC?

The reason for single sex spaces to exist is to give people of the relevant sex a level of safety, privacy and dignity that they would not have if the space was mixed sex.

From the point of view of the female users of a women only space, what is the difference between a man, a trans woman, and a passing trans man? They all look like members of the male sex.

At the end of the day, the reasons for single sex spaces were well understood by the whole of society long before Frankenstein-esque doctors with dollar signs in their eyes started lying mentally fragile people by telling them that they could change sex. The reasons for single sex spaces have not gone away.

So if there is now a small minority of people who do not really belong in spaces for either sex, some provision does need to be made for them, but not at the expense of everyone else.

The rest of society should not have to sacrifice their own safety, privacy and dignity for a group of people who, in my opinion, have somewhat chosen to other themselves.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

You know perfectly well that cis is considered a slur on here.

It is neither legitimate nor lawful to develop guidance that says gender variant people can be treated differently to other persons of the same birth sex, only for the purposes of excluding them from services.

Because there is no sympathy or empathy at all for traumatised women and girls. Only for people with transgender identities to be centred only.

Aside from the fact that that is completely ridiculous,

I was told it was acceptable to use the word 'cis' as long as you don't direct it personally at a another user.

Are you a discrimination KC?

Exactly this.

It can't be said enough that passing trans men have been finding solutions to all of this for a while now which generally don't involve using single sex toilets for either sex. Because they don't want to make women uncomfortable and they don't want to make themselves unsafe.

Those trans men could stand to benefit hugely if more spaces which are accessible to them are created as a result of the Supreme Court judgment.

It's really only trans women who don't appear to give a shit about the impact of their presence in a single sex space for women.

Lots of us are offended by it so please desist.

It is certainly not my side of this row that is having the serious empathy fail.

If you are offended by perfectly ordinary, descriptive and inclusive language because of your attitudes about trans people, it's really not of my concern.

It is, however, my concern not to break the mumsent talk guidelines. I was told it was acceptable to use the word as long as it is not directed personally at another user. If I am wrong about that I am happy to desist.

Interestingly there are other people that exist in the world apart from trans people.

We are talking about extremely rare scenarios with a combination of a single sex service, vulnerable service users and a trans person that ‘passes’ to the extent that it could cause distress.

Theres a strong likelihood here that the only people affected are the mythical hairy butch ‘transmen’ friends of trans activists that no one has ever seen and if they do exist, are a tiny proportion of a tiny proportion (trans) of the population.

So the above scenario will happen once in a blue moon - you don’t need to worry quite as much as you are. Maybe take some time out to process.

Sorry to be rude but I would have replied to the initial question “have you been tested”, I would have said “no, have you been tested for being a c*nt?”