New councillor wants to stop 'free mixing' between men and women

[SeaSwim5]

Independent candidate Maheen Kamran has been elected in Burnley.

As well as support for Gaza, her manifesto included a pledge to encourage public spaces to end free mixing of men and women.

"Muslim women aren't really comfortable being involved with Muslim men. I'm sure we can have segregated areas, segregated gyms."

Is this a sensible approach and important for inclusivity? It's notable that many anti-Trans activists advocate the importance of single-sex spaces.

However, some have raised concerns about the growing sectarian nature of UK politics.

Should we be looking to reduce 'free mixing' between men and women and create more single sex spaces?

For clarity, the facts you were unwilling to accept last time we met were the actual quoted statements from the SC decision on what sex meant

er well except this is a complete lie, isn’t it? So I don’t think it’s me acting in bad faith is it?

Annnnyway, the point is- this councillor wants more sex segregated spaces to protect women. You say that’s not necessary because sex segregated spaces should only be necessary when they are required to protect women’s dignity and privacy. I was pointing out that there may be very different perspectives on when exactly that is.

You shouldn’t, and also you can’t. You can only restrict a space or service on the basis of one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act, and even then only if it’s a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. The equality act incorporated the sex discrimination act, which was designed to stop men excluding women from things for no good reason.

The recent Supreme Court judgement confirmed that if a space is only for one sex, you can’t lead in people of the opposite sex just because they say they are trans.

It’s so obviously under bridge dweller territory isn’t it.

I was also thinking good protective measure. The thing in islam it's all about prevention (of pre-martial sex) rather than "oh no let's try and manage it". Same thing with alcohol. Just a blanket ban.

The recent Supreme Court judgement confirmed that if a space is only for one sex, you can’t lead in people of the opposite sex just because they say they are trans.

The SC did not say that:

They said you are not necessarily required to let trans people in even with a GRC. It’s not necessary unlawful to exclude them. Very important difference.

@MsGrumpytrousers

Providing a space for people to gather with their own sex can be a legitimate aim though.

There is a women's only gym near me already.

I mean this is just flagrant racism.

@BethDuttonYeHaw

I'm not sure what's trolly about it.

This is a real suggestion that has been put forward by a newly elected councillor.

A single sex space has to be that though, and exclude biological males even if they are trans women.

A ridiculous, sweeping generalisation.

There is however something strange in a religion that makes women cover up because the men may be tempted by them, but the answer is surely to teach them respect for women.

But why would we have that in the U.K.?

The judgement doesn’t say that spaces that cater to women have to exclude trans women. It simply doesn’t . People need to stop spreading this false information. It is an anti trans agenda.

I didn’t say ‘cater to women’ I said single sex.

Look at the guidance on single sex spaces.

Here you go @Lostcat

In workplaces, it is compulsory to provide sufficient single-sex toilets, as well as sufficient single-sex changing and washing facilities where these facilities are needed.

You are a disgusting racist. Shame on you!

Yes the guidance interprets the judgement that way, but that is not what the judgement itself actually says. The guidance is draft and it is not law.

Im not going to play word games with you. The point is the judgement did not mandate that services for women exclude trans women, or that services for men exclude trans men. It just said that doing so isn’t necessarily unlawful even if the person has a GRC.

You don't have any excuse for having misunderstood the judgment at this point.

You've had it explained to you a thousand times.

The judgment makes it clear that if a women only space has trans women in it, it is not a single sex space.

nope your faux innocence isn’t convincing me in the slightest

ive had it wrongly explained to me by people who want to over interpret the judgement to promote an anti trans agenda.

it is not law. It is people’s interpretations of the judgement.

Great I don’t mind if we get there through the guidance, as long as people follow it.

Of course it’s not sensible. In the UK there is a presumption that all spaces, services and spaces are open to both sexes. In certain circumstances there might be sex segregated spaces services and spaces when it is proportionate. This would look whether it would be sat reasonable to expect women (as a class) to have a reason such as privacy, decency etc to have a separate space etc. There might be a group within the class of women who might debate whether this was proportionate saying eg they don’t mind biological males who identify themselves as women stripping off in their changing room. But for the purpose of sex equality you’re looking at the class of women as a whole.

Similarly, would it be proportionate to separate other areas for men and women if the reason the separate those areas was simply because a nationally small proportion of women would find it more in keeping with a minority religion on the UK? I think it would never be seen as proportionate for women as a whole.

People don’t need to follow the guidance because it has no force of law

Surprised more people haven't shown shock at her age. What on earth life experience has she got at 18? It's laughable.

The standards of what it means to be a man in Britain? So they should all be lazy, selfish fuckers, with a good proportion of stalkers, abusers and rapists? Got you.