Page 32 | 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 · 2025-04-23T09:04:01+00:00

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?

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 18:09

Nameychangington · 27/04/2025 17:54

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.

That does not make Jane Smith a woman under the Act

correct

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

No this doesn’t logically follow from your previous statement.

The PC characteristic of sex is birth sex (regardless of gender). However this does not mean that gender is “irrelevant”. Gender is very relevant where a person’s gender may lead to misperceptions about their sex. The judgement provides that in these latter circumstances the PC of sex may apply , and that individuals (eg trans men) may be excluded from services that are provided to people based on the basis of the PC of sex.

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 18:10

Anyway as ever it has been exhausting (and frequently infuriating) trying to communicate with you all on this. I wish you a very pleasant spring evening. 😅

Kucinghitam · 27/04/2025 18:12

I don't suppose there are any undecided lurkers left on this thread after the endless Righteous self-identified clever-clever whatabouting squirming obfuscatory squirrel-pointing wordsmithery, but if there are, perhaps this is what the talkboard equivalent of being a dirty mag, KY jelly and box of tissues must feel like.

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 18:26

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 18:09

That does not make Jane Smith a woman under the Act

correct

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

No this doesn’t logically follow from your previous statement.

The PC characteristic of sex is birth sex (regardless of gender). However this does not mean that gender is “irrelevant”. Gender is very relevant where a person’s gender may lead to misperceptions about their sex. The judgement provides that in these latter circumstances the PC of sex may apply , and that individuals (eg trans men) may be excluded from services that are provided to people based on the basis of the PC of sex.

Show quote history

*Gender is very relevant where a person’s gender may lead to misperceptions about their sex. The judgement provides that in these latter circumstances the PC of sex may be applied differently

juldan · 27/04/2025 18:34

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 17:24

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.

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
(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:

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.

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

@Lostcat
Please read the SC ruling This specific bit “when trans women experience discrimination as women “ is clearly covered.
I don’t see any ambiguity in the ruling or EHRC guidance , which you are trying to imply.
It is very clear that sex means biological sex for all aspects of Equality Act and that transgender people are covered separately in the EA.
It is also very clear that single sex spaces mean exactly that, single sex. The ruling mentions schools, changing rooms, toilets, refuges, hospitals,sport, lesbian groups and some other. It couldn’t be any clearer.
None one of this is discriminatory to trans people. EHRC guidance states clearly:
“however where facilities are available to both men and women, trans people should not be put in a position where there are no facilities for them to use

where possible, mixed-sex toilet, washing or changing facilities in addition to sufficient single-sex facilities should be provided
where toilet, washing or changing facilities are in lockable rooms (not cubicles) which are intended for the use of one person at a time, they can be used by either women or men”

BundleBoogie · 27/04/2025 21:47

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 16:25

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.

Edited

Can you list your legal qualifications and experience that puts your legal opinion above that of the entire legal department of the EHRC? You must be very highly qualified.

cardibach · 27/04/2025 22:10

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 17:31

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.

Edited

Show quote history

Which fact? The fact that’s it’s not possible to change sex? Or the fact that TRAs have form for violent and aggressive behaviour?
I assure you both of those are facts. They are neither prejudiced nor discriminatory. They are just…how it is. And whether someone has a gender identity not aligned to their sex or not doesn’t give them the right to say a fact isn’t a fact without proving it.

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 04:48

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 11:04

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.

Edited

Show quote history

For the 50 thousandth time, it's called an EXEMPTION.

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 04:50

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 11:27

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.

Edited

Show quote history

An EXEMPTION is not 'unlawful'. You clearly don't know what 'unlawful' means.

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 04:54

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 11:48

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.

Edited

Show quote history

They relate only to transmen and rape crisis centres. Therefore, NOT arbitrary at all. It is consistent, it is an EXEMPTION based on a proportionate response.

Therefore, it is lawful. You lying about this just makes you look unhinged.

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 04:57

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 15:08

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.

Edited

Show quote history

No one is 'excluded' from services. There are separate services set up, they won't be missing out on anything.

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 05:01

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 15:48

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!!

Edited

Show quote history

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.

That is EXACTLY how the judgement was intended, and we tried to tell you that before the EHRC report, but you clung to Sumption's wrong interpretations because it suited you. We all told you, we all told you that the judgement meant excluding males from all female spaces. Yet you wouldn't listen. You wrongly believed it didn't. The EHRC has now clarified and it is EXACTLY AS WE SAID IT WOULD BE. You didn't listen to us. You thought you and Sumption's misinterpretations were correct. You were WRONG!!

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 05:05

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 16:25

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.

Edited

It's sex, not 'gender'. And we told you that was the intention of the ruling, but you would not hear it. We told you, you didn't listen. Except to that idiot Sumption. Now the EHRC clarified the ruling it is EXACTLY WHAT WE TOLD YOU IT WOULD BE. Now you're angry because we were right all along, and you were wrong. As we TOLD YOU!

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 05:08

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 16:29

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:

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)
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.

Edited

Show quote history

It's called an EXEMPTION! Get a dictionary, and look the word 'exemption' up.

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 05:10

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 17:24

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.

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
(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:

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.

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

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

It's called an EXEMPTION. Look the definition of the word 'exemption' up in the dictionary.

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 05:14

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 17:31

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.

Edited

Show quote history

A. There are transwomen that get violent at protests. There is hardcore proof of this.
B. Males are not suffering discrimination.
C. I think women who have had threats and been punched by this 'vulnerablest most oppressedest group EVVVAAH' are in a better position to judge.

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 05:16

Lostcat · 27/04/2025 17:58

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.

Edited

Show quote history

No you are dismissing the identities and the experience of females to justify pandering to violent males.

Nominative · 01/05/2025 10:51

FlakyCritic · 28/04/2025 05:01

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.

That is EXACTLY how the judgement was intended, and we tried to tell you that before the EHRC report, but you clung to Sumption's wrong interpretations because it suited you. We all told you, we all told you that the judgement meant excluding males from all female spaces. Yet you wouldn't listen. You wrongly believed it didn't. The EHRC has now clarified and it is EXACTLY AS WE SAID IT WOULD BE. You didn't listen to us. You thought you and Sumption's misinterpretations were correct. You were WRONG!!

Show quote history

Shouting that someone was wrong doesn't make them wrong, nor does the fact that the EHRC has said something automatically make it correct.

Nameychangington · 01/05/2025 11:24

Nominative · 01/05/2025 10:51

Shouting that someone was wrong doesn't make them wrong, nor does the fact that the EHRC has said something automatically make it correct.

Show quote history

No, the fact that they're wrong makes them wrong.