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?

Here is one example.

And again here. I am well aware that it is in the judgement. The provision in itself is not unlawful as I have said repeatedly.

Yawn yes we get it, you think if passing transmen are excluding from a women's rape support group because the women would read them as male, it's not fair to exclude transwomen from women's toilets. Because somehow to you that's equivalent. I asked you this morning if that was seriously the look you were going for, apparently it is. You do you.

Weird that you have decided that Lord Sumption's interpretation is correct

Well you would find it “weird” because you obviously haven’t actually read my posts 😂.
my posts were oriented at explaining exactly why the EHRC interpretation cannot be correct as it is contradictory, Inconsistent, arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore clearly not compatible with the law.

You cannot at the same time

1. argue that trans people can never , in any circumstance, be treated diff from people of their birth sex in relation to same sex provision because it would automatically be discriminatory to do so, (as per the over interpretation in the guidance)

2. then argue that actually trans people can be treated differently from people of their birth sex sometimes and that’s not discriminatory (As per guidance + provisions in the SC judgement)

The two statements are entirely contradictory.

Hope this is clear now.

To be clear , it is my personal view that it is not unseasonable to have exemptions where transwomen can be excluded from female spaces , and where trans men can also be excluded from female spaces, where it can be shown in the particular context that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (eg rape crisis support). This is how the law has always been and I think it’s reasonable/ proportionate.

What is beyond unreasonable (and unlawful) is the EHRC guidance which declares that trans people must never be allowed to use facilities in accordance with their gender.

No,.you are seeing it from the wrong end of a telescope. This is not about what we do and don't do about transpeople. This is about what we do and don't do, about men and women.

All the people of one sex are excluded from the provision for the opposite sex - no men allowed in the women's DV shelter.

Also, in limited circumstances, some people of the same sex are also excluded because they will cause distress to the users - no passing transmen (all 5 of them) in the women's DV shelter.

Not everything is solely focussed on transpeople. Soz.

What is beyond unreasonable (and unlawful) is the EHRC guidance which declares that trans people must never be allowed to use facilities in accordance with their gender.

No one at all, trans or not, is allowed to use facilities in accordance with their gender. Because facilities aren't provided by gender.

@Lostcat maaaaateeeee! Are you getting your analysis from Reddit? Have you read the judgement?

You can’t just write trans people out of the narrative , “soz”.

If you are going to treat trans people differently you have to show that your logic makes sense - it doesn’t because it is this:

1. trans people can never , in any circumstance, be treated diff from people of their birth sex in relation to same sex provision because it would automatically be discriminatory to do so, (eg if you admit trans women , the service has to be open to all men otherwise discrimination)
2. then argue that actually trans people can be treated differently from people of their birth sex sometimes and that’s not discriminatory

The two statements are entirely contradictory.

if you are struggling with this language because it describes the experience of people who aren’t exactly like you, I’ll re-phrase it. It makes no difference to me :

To be clear , it is my personal view that it is not unseasonable to have exemptions where transwomen can be excluded from female spaces , and where trans men can also be excluded from female spaces, where it can be shown in the particular context that it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (eg rape crisis support). This is how the law has always been and I think it’s reasonable/ proportionate.

What is beyond unreasonable (and unlawful) is the EHRC guidance which declares that trans women must never be allowed to use women’s facilities (and trans men must never be allowed to use men’s - although no one is actually bothered by this, but it has to be added of course for appearances)

**If you are going to exclude trans people from services you have to show that your logic makes sense .

Trans people are humans too and they are still protected under the EA - the SC made that clear.

Sigh

The aim is not to exclude transpeople. The aim is to exclude everyone of the wrong sex. This is about sex, not gender. That's the part you keep missing. Gender is irrelevant to the PC of sex in the Equality Act. That is the point of the judgement. The PC of gender reassignment is a completely different PC. The two are not connected.

None of that says transwomen are violent predators or their identities are not valid. It says that some TRAs are violent (and you know that’s true- look at placards and the website terf is a slur if you are unaware) and that their female identity is not the same as being of the female sex. This is also true.

Gender is irrelevant to the PC of sex in the Equality Act. That is the point of the judgement

except it’s not. That’s the part you are misunderstanding.

1. the purpose of the judgement was much narrower- simply to clarify the use of specific terminologies for the purposes of understanding diff provisions in the EA
2. (related to your misunderstanding of this discrete, narrow aim) the situation is not as black and white as you think it is and that is the problem. Sometimes “gender” may very well be relevant to the PC of sex in the equality act. - eg when trans women experience discrimination as women and when trans men can be excluded from female services. ( thats not to say that gender is the PC - the PC has been clarified as birth sex, but that doesn’t mean gender is “irrelevant” as you claim)

Whenever you exclude trans people , or any people, with a protected characteristic from a service you have to show that it’s a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. In order to do so you have to show that your logic is consistent/ makes sense is not arbitrary. The EHRC guidance applies the following two (contradictory) logics at the same time, for the purpose of justifying excluding trans people from services:

1. trans people can never , in any circumstance, be treated diff from people of their birth sex in relation to same sex provision because it would automatically be discriminatory to do so, (eg if you admit trans women , the service has to be open to all men otherwise discrimination), sex presentation / transition is irrelevant.

1. trans people can be treated differently from people of their birth sex sometimes without being discriminatory . Sex presentation/ transition may be relevant.

None of that says transwomen are violent predators or their identities are not valid

You believe these statements you just made because you share the same attitudes as that PP.

Show these statements to a sample of trans women and ask them if they agree with you or me. That might help clarify things for you.

Attitudes don't alter facts. In the same way feelings don’t.

The statements that were made are not factual , they are very clearly harmful, expressing prejudice and discriminatory. You are struggling to see that as people often do when they are a) not the person suffering the discrimination, b) in fact share the discriminatory attitudes themselves. That’s why I recommend you show them to a sample of trans people who will be in a much better position than you to judge.

If we show the statement 'the earth is a ball' to a group of flat earthers, the fact that the flat earthers are likely to dislike the statement does not make the statement incorrect, harmful, discriminatory, or prejudiced.

You're just sealioning.

Sometimes “gender” may very well be relevant to the PC of sex in the equality act. - eg when trans women experience discrimination as women

I explained this to you on a different thread over a week ago. E.g. an employer rejecting a CV from Jane Smith because the employer doesn't want to employ a woman, even though Jane Smith is actually a transwoman. Jane Smith has been subjected to perceptive discrimination under the PC of sex, because the employer assumed he was a woman. That does not make Jane Smith a woman under the Act.

Just as if a racist employer rejects a CV from Abdullah Hussain, because he doesn't want to employ a Pakistani man. Abdullah is actually a white man, but has been subjected to perceptive discrimination under the PC of race, because the employer assumed he was Pakistani. It doesn't make Abdullah Pakistani.

Jane's gender and Abdullah's whiteness are irrelevant to the discrimination that occurred because it was based on the perception. The same discrimination would have occurred if Jane Smith has been a man who doesn't identify as a transwoman, whose parents just chose to name him Jane.

So no, gender isn't relevant to the PC of sex.

Just a general observation that people who are high on their own Righteous farts are probably experiencing a... sensual... thigh-clenching... enjoyment from self-identified clever-clever whatabouting squirming obfuscatory squirrel-pointing wordsmithery, as they are polishing their... halo... at the Bad People.

If we show the statement 'the earth is a ball' to a group of flat earthers

this comparison is really just more evidence of the same - as I said dismissal of trans people’s identities.

If we accept your argument @Lostcat then the only challenge would be that it's discrimatory to exclude some TM from facilities for their sex. Which I understand has already been covered with the assertion the different treatment would be proportionate to protect the rights of another group. Try as I might, I can't see any argument that failing to discriminate against TW in the way some TM may be discriminated against amounts to discrimination against TW.

If we accept your argument then the only challenge would be that it's discrimatory to exclude some TM from facilities for their sex

Absolutely not. It’s bizarre that you come to this conclusion - it just exposes the fundamentalism

I don’t think that the notion that sex is binary and immutable - which is both material and legal fact - is “fundamentalism” in the pejorative way you use it.

Of course, you have meant something else.