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?

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.

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.

It is lawful as it is a PROPORTIONATE RESPONSE to protect a vulnerable community - women and girls.

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.

It is therefore LAWFUL as it is a proportionate response to protect a vulnerable community - women and girls who have been raped.

It is a lawful and proportionate EXEMPTION to the ruling.

It is not 'arbitrarily'. It is a proportionate response to protect a vulnerable community - women and girls who have been raped.

It is a lawful and proportionate EXEMPTION to the ruling.

It is both LEGITIMATE and LAWFUL to rule that trans men can be treated differently based on transition that will upset women and girl rape survivors. It is a LAWFUL AND LEGITIMATE EXEMPTION.

Considering you prioritise men and their feelings, it most certainly is your side that is the ONLY side that has serious empathy fail, and a sensitivity chip missing.

The word is deeply offensive and excludes women, it is very exclusive language, not inclusive. And there is no need for it.

Women or transwomen.

There you go. That's all you need.

As the respected Biologist and Atheist Richard Dawkins says, trans/Gender Ideology is a cult. It is a metaphysical belief on something that can't be substantiated of quantified. Also desisters will testify what response they get if they stray from the cult. They are outcast, doxxed, abused, shunned. All very cult-like behaviour.

Unfortunately you’d get the bio-illiterate people come back with “but what the women who’ve stopped having periods, or never been pregnant or birthed children? Are they men?? Hanh?? Hanh?? Gotcha!” I’ve had these utterly stupid responses despite calmly and repeatedly explaining in detail why only female people go through menopause, and why choosing not to be pregnant doesn’t magically un-sex women, etc.

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

The biggest ironic lie there is. Trans infiltrated and invaded our spaces. We didn't do that to them.

I am a feminist.

No you're not. You're a meninist. A mens rights activist. No feminist centres males in feminism the way you do.

Just one who acknowledges trans people, and is ok with them too.

One can acknowledge trans people without supporting males in female spaces, you know.

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

Being gay does not seek to tear down the rights of another group. Trans bears all the signs of a religious cult.

Gravity physically exists. The earth physically is round. An 'identity' in one's head is not physical and is not tangible. Belief in an 'identity' is a metaphysical belief. A religious belief.

Again - the point is not that that this provision in itself is illegitimate or unlawful per se.
The point is , you cannot have it both ways.

If you are going to say that it is lawful and legitimate in some circumstances to treat trans men differently from other “birth sex” females , based on transition , when interpreting protections related to sex in the EA.

you can’t then simultaneously claim that it can never possibly be lawful and legitimate to treat trans women differently from other “birth sex” men , based on transition, when interpreting protections related to sex in the EA.

Making these two claims simultaneously constitutes contradictory, arbitrary and subjective logic . Therefore it can’t possibly be lawful. It fails the “legitimate aim” test.

The SC judgement itself does not contain this contradictory, arbitrary, discriminatory logic.

The EHRC draft guidance does, which is why it is a completely erroneous and unlawful interpretation of the judgement.

In other words if you want this exeption for trans men on the basis that they are perceived to be male , you can’t then justify the dogmatic , uncompromising logic of “trans women can never be allowed in female spaces.”

You would have to allow an equivalent possibility, for example, that trans women could be treated differently from “other birth sex males” to the extent that they are “perceived to be female”.

Otherwise your reasoning is exposed as completely arbitrary, which cannot be legitimate.

@lostcat why are you so determined to get women to allow males into their spaces? Have you ever heard the term “no means no”?

Yes, we CAN have it both ways. It is what is meant by EXEMPTION.

As males, transwomen are not vulnerable.

Females are. Hence, the EXEMPTION.

This is just more ignoring the fact that there are two levels of legitimate discrimination involved here.

The first is that a provision is primarily segregated by sex. That is the unrelenting first legitimate discriminator.

So no to any of this below.

uncompromising logic of “trans women can never be allowed in female spaces.”
You would have to allow an equivalent possibility, for example, that trans women could be treated differently from “other birth sex males” to the extent that they are “perceived to be female”.

The guidance calls for proportionate means in a very limited area. And that area that keeps being dismissed is things like rape crisis and rape care.

If the campaigning groups are going to focus on this, once that is understood by the public that they are pushing that the most vulnerable people are to be traumatised in this way because people’s philosophical belief, I would think that the remaining sympathy for people who have transgender identities will drop further.

Remember, the judgement also stated that those who maybe excluded by that second level will need to have provision especially for them. They are not being left without provision.

Acknowledgement needs to be made by female people with transgender identities that their choices may cause other female people distress in moments of extreme vulnerability. They already are doing this because they are the ones telling us about their alternative solutions. Because those female people have used hormones and surgeries to develop male sex markers. So they resemble to some people, who are vulnerable, the sex that caused trauma.

Of course, it needs to be dealt with sensitively. And it must be proportionate. As Akua Reindorf says, those cases may well be on a case by case basis.

There is no leverage to be found where you say. Because the first level of legitimate discrimination is clear - where human sex categories needs to be prioritised they will be.

Not sure how many KC’s with discrimination and human rights specialities need to say it to you Lostcat. It seems you are stuck in a loop of your own outrage.

“The point is , you cannot have it both ways.”

Says you? With what legal training ?

The experts in the act disagree with you. The interim guidance is now out , I suggest you watch and see what happens like the rest of us.

This shit will disappear as more and more kids grow up who have had genetic testing in some way....

I know my kid is a girl. I had the harmony test when pregnant and for health reasons she's had some genetic screening that would have told me if there was a sneaky Y chromosome hiding away.

OK. The case was brought to the Supreme Coirt by For Women Scotland. Their priority was getting the legalities of the words sex and women clarified for the benefit of women.

It's not a ruling 'against' transpeople -transwomen or transmen. It merely clarifies the terms currently set out in the Equalitiies Act. That's the law that's been in place for the last 15 years and clarification was necessary because the law has been misrepresented by some for the past 10 years. Nothing has actually changed.

That's the first thing.

Some women on here state they believe TWAW. Personally, I could count on one hand the number of people I've met in real life who agree - male, female, gay, straight, aged 15-75, working class, middle class, from educated professionals to pissed blokes in the pub and colleagues (I'm a teacher). And I've talked about this openly mainly because I've been interested in what people outside of various internet 'echo chambers' think. And I've met fewer than 5 people who genuinely believe men can become women. And at least one of those has changed their mind.

A few people have felt that, despite not believing TWAW, TiM should be allowed in women's spaces because they want to be kind; a few haven't really known what the answer is; a few just want to respect a person's understanding of themselves; many have wondered why the resistance to third spaces but absolutely none have thought men should be in women's spaces on the basis that they've literally become women.

As for the exemptions, well that also exists to protect women and exists because some TM (and many more TM than TW) do pass.

It's not arbitrary. But given that genital checks are not going to become a thing, it really just means that if someone genuinely believes this person is a man and has no way of verifying otherwise, they will be allowed to be excluded from women's spaces on that basis. It's essentially a legal protection for businesses who might get it wrong. Not so that people can arbitrarily accuse others of not performing masculinity or femininity well enough (as I've seen on a few threads) because that's a trans ideology not a truth.

In the rare event of a man genuinely passing as a woman (less likely due to the irreversible effects of testosterone), he will also continue to use the women's facilities because, as I said, there will be no genital checks and he'd just go unnoticed.

And, yes, that means it'll ultimately come down to 'passing privilege' but that's an unfortunate side effect of the aggressive overreaching of the trans movement because, as many have said, most women know TW have been using the women's for years, many of us have known we were queuing with a man, standing at the sinks next to a man etc but, as long as they were behaving appropriately and respectfully (and every TW I've personally encountered in this way has) we were prepared to be tolerant and let it go.

Men in women's toilets, for many, is the thin end of the wedge and that's why it's been focused on so much - because its the one its most easy to both justify and mock. There's a far more sinister side to it which has been the general invasion and occupation of womanhood - what is means to be a woman, who is a woman, the language around the female experience and just the right of women to define themselves,.talk about themselves and say no to men. Oh and the aggressive extreme male behaviour whereby so many have just come across like every other unpleasant, absuve, aggressive man that women have relied upon women's spaces from which to escape.

I'm not surprised that many women don't have an issue sharing toilets. I'm not surprised that many women feel conflicted because they know TW who they see as being kind, decent, ordinary people living their lives. And I understand their concern for them.

What I am surprised by is the number of women who, having seen the hate, vitriol and violence demonstrated by others in their friend's, colleague's, family member's names, don't have a problem with that or still maintain that this is still just about quiet, gentle, vulnerable, 'feminine' men who just want to pee.

As always, it's those extreme TRAs that people really should have an issue with and not women because it's only because of the actual erasure of women, women's rights and language that this ever became necessary.

I haven't heard or read of a single woman who wants transpeople erased or wishes harm or violence towards them. The same cannot be said of the trans position against women.

The interim guidance is a start. Hopefully, the full guidance expected by the summer will make things clearer for everyone but people arguing about it isn't going to achieve anything.

Many men have already subscribed to the 'pee next to me' idea. None of the men I've spoken to speak badly of TW or express hatred towards them. They just don't think they should be in women's spaces or that they are women. Because they shouldn't be and they're not.

Personally, I think everyone's energies would he far better spent navigating the ruling and putting things in place that support everyone and everyone's needs and rights rather than the aggressive posturing we're seeing. But I suppose that's because I'm a woman and many men (and some women) just don't seem to understand that their wants and demands do not equal their rights.

As I understand it, the exemption can exclude TM from women's facilities, but does not state this means they must be included in men's. It says 'provision' must be in place to avoid discrimination, but this could be a third space, likely the already unisex accessible toilet in practise. So even if a similar exemption were in place for TW, this would not provide them with the key to the women's toilets you are arguing for.

I have very little sympathy for the adult males in this game who orchestrated the whole thing and are now being told no.

I do have significant sympathy for anyone under the age of 25 who is affected because they have been encouraged and lied to by adults who really should have known better and have been brought up into the idea that they, born John, are really now Jane or young women who've believed they had to have sex with a TW or be labelled a TERF or a genital fetishist and that couldn't happen as they were all under the LGBT+ umbrella together. Or the young women who thought that binding their breasts and adopting unisex clothing would protect them from sexism.

And I have some sympathy for the 'quiet and gentle' TW who just felt they weren't men and have been living peacefully and tolerated alongside us for many years.

But, mostly, I want to support women and see women's rights protected as a woman, as a sister of girls, as the mother of a daughter, as the aunt of a niece and as the teacher of 100s of girls over the years.

So what you're saying is, if 'passing' transmen can be excluded from female spaces, when their 'passingness' will distress the users - rape support groups, DV shelters etc - then 'passing' transwomen have to be allowed in female spaces or it's not fair?

Your argument is 'well if raped and abused women can exclude the strapping bearded transmen then you have to let dainty transwomen in because otherwise no fair'?

You're trying to use raped women as way to wedge males into women's spaces, on the grounds that the raped women are being mean to the men otherwise?

Is that really the look you want to go for? Because, between us, it really does just point out how much of a male supremacist movement gender ideology actually is.

#Operation let them speak

I see that Lost is still paddling upstream, powered by the zeal of a true believer.

You can’t have an exemption if the logic behind it is contradictory and arbitrary- that fails the legitimacy test.

@SaveMeFromHumanityYou have eloquently absolutely hit the nail on the head. I also made the point that men who passed as women have always been kindly tolerated (ie not challenged) in women’s loos, because essentially women are often empathetic and understanding.
I think the men in rape centres, men insisting that they were women and we were now “cis women”, men who had gone through puberty competing against women in sport (and taking medals) that ruined it for the truly “female” men who have always met with our understanding.

It was also the insistence that a third space for trans was discriminatory.

They pushed their agenda too far.