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 logic behind it is NOT contradictory or arbitrary!

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.

I think that quite a number of them aren't actually interested in even attempting to pass, when asserting their determination and perceived right to use women's facilities.

A lot of them don't try to amend their voices or even bother to shave off their beards - which is something that even the majority of 'standard' men who are not claiming to be anything other than men do on a daily basis.

I wonder if they see it as an affront to their self-importance and assertion of rights that, if they have to make the effort to pass, that somehow puts them on the back foot, having to compromise, and delegitimises their inherent self-belief that they should be entitled to whatever they want without question.

Also 'passing' will cause them to go under the radar and thus not get them the attention or the 'I'm the victim in this' publicity that so many of them seem to crave.

It's not contradictory, or arbitrary. As has been explained to you.

So if there is a sexual assault support group for men who have been sexually assaulted by women, and a transwoman who has had so many extreme body modifications that he passes as a woman, such that his presence will trigger the survivors there, then he too can be excluded. See? Totally fair.

Of course it is. It's completely inconsistent.

According to the EHRC guidance, it is always unlawful and discriminatory to exclude some but not all individuals from services that cater to persons of the opposite birth sex, on the basis of gender differences/ perceived sex/ transition.

However, it is conversely not always unlawful and discriminatory to exclude some but not all individuals from services that cater to persons of the same birth sex, on the very same basis of gender differences/ perceived sex/ transition.

In the first provision it is declared that gender differences/ perceived sex/ transition can never, in any circumstances, be seen as a legitimate basis/ relevant factor in discriminating between people when in comes to the provision of single sex services (i.e. if you allow trans women into female toilets, you have to allow all birth sex males, otherwise it is inevitably discrimination - no exceptions, no contextual factors, nada).

In the second provision it is declared that - oh actually no, gender differences/ perceived sex/ transition can sometimes, in some circumstances be a legitimate basis/ relevant factor in discriminating between people of the same birth sex when in comes to the provision of single sex services (even if the service is for females, you don't have to allow all birth sex female, you can still exclude trans men).

So which is it?

These logics are not consistent, but they very effectively enable the exclusion of trans people from toilets. This is not a legitimate aim.

The second provision aligns with the judgement, the first provision does not.

None of us can help you Lost. Maybe you should read the whole Supreme Court judgement and then wait for the full version of the guidence from the EHRC and read that too? TBH, the law doesn't depend on you understanding it, it is the law regardless of your confusion.

Of course, the law is the law as determined by the SC judgement.

The draft guidance has no statutory force and can be very clearly shown to be unlawful for reasons explained. It's very important to draw attention to this in the current climate.

I don't think you're drawing attention to what you think you're drawing attention to.

But still #letthemspeak

No. I am saying that we - that is the posters who have tried to clarify the interim guidence - have more chance of teaching quantum physics to a chicken than getting you to understand the guidence. This is because you are willfully misunderstanding it, obfuscating in an attempt to create confusion (when it is in actual fact very simple) and frankly sealioning.

Yes, I perfectly understand that your intentions were to belittle/ insult/ accuse and because I didn't take the bait you decided to do it more directly. I don't think it does much for your case, but in any case I'm not particularly interested in mud slinging.

I'm interested respectful analysis of the EHRC guidance/ SC judgement.

The provisions in the Statutory Guidance can be clearly shown to apply inconsistent and arbitrary logic, for the purposes of maximising exclusion of gender non-conforming people from public services.

They are therefore not consistent with the SC judgement and not lawful.

The EA is an act discussing what is legitimate and what is illegitimate discrimination based on needs.

It focuses on the needs of groups of people. This guidance does that.

This discussion is purely sparpling by now.

I don't believe that you are interested in any kind of good faith 'analysis' and anyone who reads your posts can decide for themselves whether they agree or not.

I am absolutely interested in good faith analysis. Very concerned about it in fact.

Yes I made the posts so people can read them.

Ahh I’ve got it! You’re the comedy element trying to cheer us all up by giving us a good giggle. Thankyou for your service. It’s appreciated

There was a very clear analysis by @SaveMeFromHumanity at 07.29. It was in reply to one of your posts so should be in your notifications if you can’t otherwise find it.

Yes I saw it. It was only of very tangential relevance to my posts which were focused on drawing attention to the illogic/ inconsistency in how the EHRC is seeking to implement the SC judgement, so I really had nothing to say on it.

(Her post pretty much boiled down to- she knows lots of people and none of them think TWAW. The guidance isn’t a problem because it won’t be enforced so people who “pass” can get away with it (or something like that?). And then asserting her opinion that “trans activists” are awful and we should all just get on with implementing this guidance. So yeh, not really relevant to the conversation I was interested in having which was about the lawfulness of the EHRC guidance and how it has erroneously interpreted/ is seeking to implement the SC).

Or , rather, the guidance isn’t arbitrary because it’s necessary to protect providers’ backs because they won’t do genital checks , so they just have to judge on appearance , and that means some trans women who pass can also get away with it.
And then , yeh, lots of the usual about how trans women are violent predators, and trans people’s identities aren’t valid, but none of these opinions are anti trans, and how women who support trans people are just capitulating to male violence, etc, etc, etc.

so yeh, a) not at all coherent, b) not relevant to the analysis in my posts and c) not something I felt was worth commenting on. But there you go, I’ve done it anyway.

I think this means you didn’t understand it then, because it answers your points completely. Perhaps not in the way you would like, but it sums it up. I don’t think there’s any point 8n me (or anyone else) trying to explain it any more because for whatever reason you don’t seem to be getting it. Have a good afternoon.

Edit: it doesn’t say any of this lots of the usual about how trans women are violent predators, and trans people’s identities aren’t valid so I think you are reading the wrong thing or making stuff up.

Of course it doesn’t answer my points at all. Protecting institutions backs (because of challenges with practical enforcement) and the fact that some transwomen will slip under the radar is in no sense a defence of implementing illogical, arbitrary, and unlawful guidance.

it doesn’t say any of this lots of the usual about how trans women are violent predators, and trans people’s identities aren’t valid so I think you are reading the wrong thing or making stuff up.

Her posts starts off with lots of stuff about how no one in real life thinks TWAw.

She then proceeds to call them “TIM”.

Her post ends with statements such as:

“What I am surprised by is the number of women who having seen the hate, vitriol and violence…still maintain that this is still just about quiet, gentle, vulnerable, 'feminine' men who just want to pee.”

“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.”

So making stuff up? Not me. Let’s leave it there.

Nothing is going to “answer your points” because your whole argument is based on the precept that people can change sex, which is both materially and legally false. But please continue, as it’s illuminating for those reading along.

Well according to the EHRC Apparently they can change sex (for the purposes of treating them differently to other members of their birth sex under equalities legislation) but only if the result is their exclusion from public services.
According to the EHRC they also can never change sex (never be treated differently from other members of their birth sex) where that reasoning facilitates their exclusion from services.

As long as the result is that trans people are excluded from services then the logic is entirely flexible.

That’s the problem with the guidance.

I don’t think you have understood very much of the little you appear to have read.

Ok Lostcat just for you I went back and found the relevant paragraph in the judgement. Note that this is not the EHRC guidance, this is the actual judgement

221. There is nothing in the wording of this provision to indicate that paragraph 28 was directed specifically at those holding a GRC, nor is there any basis for concluding that this is its likely context as the Inner House suggested at para 56. (The example given in the explanatory notes at para 740 also does not distinguish between transexual people with a GRC and those without: “A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful”). We can see nothing to support the Inner House’s conclusion that “the importance of this paragraph is that it provides the only basis upon which a person might be permitted to exclude a person with a GRC from services which are provided for their acquired sex”. Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status. 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.

Again, this is not the EHRC guidance, to which you have taken such exception; this is the actual judgement, and therefore law.

All this could be avoided if you read the judgement instead of blustering around claiming other people are interpreting it wrongly.

Omg, are you reading my posts? I know that is in the judgement.

As I have said repeatedly the issue is not with that provision per se, the issue is that that provision (which is indeed in the judgement) is not compatible with the broader way that the SC judgement has been interpreted/ expanded in the EHRC judgement. Specifically the fact the EHRC has interpreted the judgement as mandating exclusion of trans women from all female spaces (based on the logic that if they are open to trans women they must be open to all birth males). This is not how the judgement was intended as per Lord Sumption’s clarifications.

Please don’t reply to me if you are not actually going to read my posts , its a complete waste of time!!

Try reading it. You are claiming that EHRC are wrongly interpreting the judgement in order to arbitrarily be unkind to transpeople. Or something.

If you read what I posted, which is the actual text of the actual judgement, you will see that the circumstances in which a transmen could be excluded from a woman's provision, and it not be discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment, is from the judgement itself. It's not EHRC or posters here or anyone else misinterpreting what the judgement says, it is from the horse's mouth.

You said it was very important for people to know the actual law and not erroneous and discriminatory interpretations of the law? Well there it is.

This is not how the judgement was intended as per Lord Sumption’s clarifications.

Weird that you have decided that Lord Sumption's interpretation is correct, and no others are, when all of the interpretations I have seen apart from his and the Lewis Silkin one which Lewis Silken quickly took down when it was pointed out that they were laughably incorrect, all say the same thing. Female= no transwomen.

Edited as Lostcat decided to change her post after I posted

And again

As I have said repeatedly the issue is not with that provision per se, the issue is that that provision (which is indeed in the judgement) is not compatible with the broader way that the SC judgement has been interpreted/ expanded in the EHRC judgement. Specifically the fact the EHRC has interpreted the judgement as mandating exclusion of trans women from all female spaces (based on the logic that if they are open to trans women they must be open to all birth males). This is not how the judgement was intended as per Lord Sumption’s clarifications.

There is no need to reply to me if you are not actually going to read my posts , its a complete waste of (everyone’s) time!!