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?

It doesn't describe anything. It's a nonsense word designed to make women a subcategory of their own sex.

Please have some respect for those of us who don't share your religious beliefs.

No it is not lawful to arbitrarily discriminate against the extremely rare 'passing' transperson.

It is lawful to discriminate against them for a legitimate reason, ie that they are a transman who has modified their bodies so much that the could be taken for a man, by women who would be distressed by the presence of a man, eg in a rape support group.

This has been been explained to you.

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

i have the patience of a saint

but women who have been rape have been told to ‘reframe’ their trauma so posters can fuck right off with their ‘empathy’ bollocks

Your side of this row has got 15 years' worth of empathy failures to make up for.

Yep you are right lost

So no? You are not a discrimination specialist KC.

But you dismiss the interpretations of those specialists, including the PM who is a human rights specialist KC.

I believe it has already been posted, but here is another link : and it discusses the judgement below.

https://knowingius.org/p/sex-has-always-meant-biological-sex

The Supreme Court also addressed the position of those who “pass” as members of the opposite sex and whether they could be excluded from single-sex services intended for their natal sex, as is the case with those trans men who are biologically female but, having taken testosterone, have masculinised their appearance [221]:

“Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate 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 the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception.”

This means that trans men do not have a legal entitlement to use male-only facilities because they are female and may some times be lawfully excluded from female-only facilities because they appear male. The only prudent solution in those situations is for service providers to offer a separate service for transgender people.

I don't have any religious beliefs.

You have some very strong anti-trans beliefs which causes you to object to language which simply acknowledges the presence/ exis.tence of trans people

I do not have any respect for those beliefs at all, I am afraid and I am not prepared to pretend that I do.

thank you

I am not anti trans, I am a feminist.

It is not my fault that the trans rights lobby deliberately decided to position "trans rights" in direct conflict with women's rights and now it has finally bitten them on the bum.

Belief in gender identity is a religious belief as far as I am concerned. I am sure it is very real to the people who believe they have one, but there is no actual evidence that it exists.

And damn right I object to language which supposedly describes me but in a way that says, "yeah yeah but anyway trans people exist".

It is not my fault that the trans rights lobby deliberately decided to position "trans rights" in direct conflict with women's rights

The most ironic statement I have ever read. It is quite the other way around.

I am a feminist. Just one who acknowledges trans people, and is ok with them too.

Being trans has nothing more in common with religious belief than being gay does - or being female does for that matter.

Saying that there is "no evidence" that gender exists is like saying that there is no evidence that evolution exists, or gravity, or that the earth is spherical. I can't help you.

On that note, I do have better things to be doing with my time. Take care y'all.

I do not have any respect for those beliefs at all, I am afraid and I am not prepared to pretend that I do.

Well that could get you into deep water, given that gender critical beliefs have been declared in law to be worthy of respect in a democratic society. I mean, you're free to hold your prejudicial beliefs, but you may need to be careful that you're not acting upon them, in any way that might be construed as discrimination.

It appears to be both those things. How come you think you know better?

No, I'm afraid that thanks to the ridiculous demands of the trans rights lobby, being pro trans is completely incompatible with being a feminist, even if you believe you identify as one.

Funny how none of the people who insist that gender identity is real can explain what the fuck it is, huh.

I'll let you make your convenient exit.

The brass fucking neck of these people who think they know more about the law than Supreme Court judges, eh?

The only good Terf is a good Terf?

So you’ll be able to produce this ‘evidence’ of ‘gender’ existing then? Oh, no - you suddenly need to leave. Maybe you’ll have it when you get back?

Such a shame that she had to leave right at the moment when she could have enlightened us all about what the fuck it is.

I'm still waiting to hear how we tell the difference between a biological man and a biological man who identifies as not a man so I wouldn't hold my breath.

We'll still be waiting in ooh ,I dunno, 84 years or so, I expect.

Here is Akua Reindorf KC explaining the exclusion clauses very clearly and, specifically mentions rape crisis support.

https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1916168804226171392

Just if anyone is interested in gaining greater understanding.... rather than just emoting and repeating that it is 'unlawful' based on I have no fucking idea what knowledge compared to barristers, specialist KCs including our own Prime Minister who is a human rights specialist.

I mean, does anyone actually think that our PM would not have a quiet word if he noticed that an update on guidance about an integral act of parliament was destined to be unlawful?

The doubling down has become nonsensical now. If there was a valid claim to all this, I think that barristers who work in this area and who have successfully won cases (unlike White) would know what they were saying. Sure each has professional reputation, but saving face right now when the interpretation is flawed and likely to be overturned would certainly not be something I would be expecting from these teams. Stonewall connected legal teams however ... yes. I expect so. And particularly ones who have specific books about the topic and those who run a charity that takes on these particular cases.

N/M

None of us are ever 100% 'gender conforming'. EVERYONE is gender non-conforming, unless you are a walking stereotype. Spaces are based on sex. SEX. Biological sex. Not some 'gender' bullshit.

Oh, and males are 50% of the population. Half of the population. Not a 'minority'.

I cringe in embarrassment for them. They're like a contestant on Idol who cannot sing and is woefully out of tune and people are laughing and sniggering at them, but they genuinely believe they can sing and they'll prove us wrong. Lostcat is like that. So strident in their view they are right and we are wrong, yet not understanding they are embarrassing themselves. It's no surprise that people that support this Gender Ideology cult lack lateral thinking and any ability to comprehend or use critical thinking. Anything out of the cult/echo chamber talking points, it shuts their mental faculties down, they simply cannot computer or understand. No matter how many times you explain it to them. They think in terms of gender 'identity', they cannot compute anything outside that mindset. It's frustrating but very typical of those who are attracted to Gender Ideology. The lack of common sense, logic, critical thinking.

From Nameychangington

"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."

Do you understand it now, or do you need a picture book? This is beyond a joke. 😣

AGAIN:

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.

If they (meaning trans men) pass so convincingly, it can traumatise rape survivors (women and girls). So excluding trans men IN THIS SITUATION is a PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE.