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?

That isn't an explanation. Can you explain exactly what 'GC ' logic is. You used the term. Surely you know what it means.

Good for her but she will be outnumbered on that one among sportswomen, both current and former.

Oh I see this thread is to remove single sex spaces.

Men will have to be more supportive to everyone in their sex class.

This is false information. It does not say this:

Actually, you are entirely incorrect. You obviously have no experience in understanding case law which is interpretating legislation.

You need to go through the steps in order:

1. what does the relevant legislation say? In this case the Equality Act says, by default every place, service, facility is open to both sexes. However in certain circumstances it is possible for a space, facility,service for one sex to exclude members of the other sex without it contravening the Equality Act. However, it must be proportionate to do so. So a single space for women can exclude men, where it is proportionate to do so. If it is not proportionate to do so it defaults back to being a mixed sex space. Considerations to take into account include whether the separation of the sexes is proportionate to protect one sex’s (as a class) dignity, privacy, safety etc. This is the legislation. If a space etc is used by both sexes, it clearly is not proportionate to exclude some and not all members of the opposite sex, it is by default mixed sex.
2. Where it is considered to be a grey area what terms in legislation mean (usually because they aren’t specifically defined in the legislation) the Courts have the power to interpret legislation. At its simplest, the word will be deemed to have its ordinary (dictionary) meaning, if this is still unclear the court will apply its power to work through the rules on statutory interpretation- these are set out incredibly clearly in the Judgement - and I suspect this will be used in many law courses going forward as such an excellent example of the procesS. What the court has the power to do in this case is decide what a woman is for the purpose of the Equality Act. It has made it clear that sexes are binary, ie there are men and women, these are defined biologically and a persons sex is that which is observed at birth.
3. The judgement doesn’t need to say transwomen are not allowed in womens only spaces. It just needed to define what woman was for the purposes of the EA.
4. The next step then is to go back to the Equality Act and read it with the definition of woman (and man) the the court has given. Eg is it proportionate to exclude men form women’s spaces for the privacy, dignity, spaces etc of women (defined as biological women). If you allow biological men into that space (and this would include transwomen as they are biological men) then it would be impossible to argue it is proportionate to exclude men as men are already using that space.

The guidance correctly has gone through those steps and brought the overall conclusion together. Your mistake is, I think, simply relying on the case and assuming it makes the totality of the law rather than confirming the definition within the Act. This is why this is not a change in law it is simply clarifying what the EA has always been. Transwomen aren’t women.

So not horrific for a woman to compete against a biological male with all the physiological advantages they possess? Or for a woman to get punched by a man for sport? How progressive and kind of you. Those with DSDs are still either one or the other. Single sex sports exist for a reason.

So you would advocate for all sports to do away with sex segregation and have it a free for all? Why does a man who says he’s a woman come before a woman, who says he’s not or otherwise? Why does a man’s feelings trump theirs?

You clearly haven't read it.

Do you think that there is ever a situation in which implementing a blanket rule that all facilities must be mixed sex could cause damage and pain?

Absolutely. I wouldn’t support such a law either.

Well, trans women are biological males, so it follows they shouldn't be competing in women's sports.

Would you allow a restaurant to say "no blacks"?

It just means logic.

I'd be interested to know which ward this councillor is to represent. Is it one with many Muslim people who prefer to have some segregated facilities? Or one which has a more mixed demographic? More importantly, was that ward one which was traditionally labour or conservative? Or lib dem?
Either way, having separate spaces for women and men isn't a massive thing to ask for. I wonder if this provision has been reduced due to austerity measures in recent years?
People must have voted her in on that ticket, so on she must go with her manifesto promise.

I'm confused.

You've said enforcing single sex spaces is wrong.

You've also said making all spaces mixed sex is wrong, implying that you accept that sometimes single sex spaces are necessary.

So which is it, because you can't have it both ways.

But you believe that trans people should be allowed in facilities for the opposite sex, so you do in fact support all facilities being mixed sex.

This is not true. Most Muslim men are not abusers.
Plus this isn’t about Muslim men. It’s about all men.

And? One goalie doesn’t have the right to give away the rights of those who do want fairness in women’s sports. Allowing males in does away with that. The minority doesn’t overrule the majority.

Anyone who looks at a mediocre male coming way down the tables in the men’s and then decides that he’s a woman and low and behold starts placing and winning medals in the women’s (Lia Thomas anyone) and thinks this is OK and fair, should take themselves off to the nearest bin.

Where shouldn’t they be mixed sex?

Anti cross-sex rights.

To the degree that trans "rights" means access to the social and legal rights and spaces of the opposite sex based on some belief that ones personality doesn'e match ones sex I am against it, because this impacts unfairly on women who have very good reasons to need single sex supports, and because these cross sex demands are based in sexist beliefs about how men and women think and live, and what personality is "proper" to each sex.

To the degree that trans rights means protecting trans people from abuse, marginalisation and unfair treatment simply because they chose to act and indeed identify differently to the norm, I am all for it.

Exactly. The default in Britain is that sexes are not segregated, we got rid of that a long time ago, eg at one time there were separate boys and girls entrances to schools. Creating separate rules for different religions/ethnicity prevents integration and cohesiveness. It should be actively discouraged.

It kind of does. Women cover from the collar bone to the ankle bone, men from the navel to the knee. If a man inadvertently comes upon a women dressed otherwise it is as much his responsibility to avert his eyes as hers to cover up. I agree it’s nonsense though.

I agree with the sentiment behind your post but can I just point out that if we swap out Transwoman for Man every single time it is used, the whole thing will sound as ludicrous as it is.

"Lara, a transwoman, insisted on her right to enter the women's changing rooms and was appalled at the bigots who tried to stop her."

Instead

"Lara, a man, insisted on his right to enter the women's changing rooms and was appalled at the bigots who tried to stop him."

Or

"Lara, a transwoman, insisted on a cervical smear."

Instead

"Lara, a man, insisted on a cervical smear."

Or

"Toytown Police said they were still unsure if a Transwoman should be able to intimately search a female prisoner.

Instead

"Toytown police said they were still unsure if a man should be able to intimately search a female prisoner."

Or

"Lara, a transwoman won the boxing match and flattened her opponent Jane Brown."

Instead

Lara, a man, won the boxing match and flattened his opponent, Jane Brown.

Never ever say Transwoman. Say man each and every time. It will catch on and it will sound as stupid as it is. This is something we can all start doing today.

Having single-sex spaces (such as toilets and changing rooms) is a very different proposition to the suggestion of ending the free mixing of the sexes in public areas. Where does that end? Designated times for walking down the high street so the twain shall never meet?

What I would suggest is that a trans woman tries to go into woman only sessions in areas frequented by Muslim women. Let's see what happens then. In fact why don't they start with the mosque female praying area?

So would you be happy to get changed in front of your male colleagues?

Or go to a mixed sex prison?

I didn’t say enforcing single sex spaces is wrong. I said it was wrong to have a blanket rule that people have to use facilities according to their birth sex, in the same way that it would be wrong to have a blanket rule saying they could never do this.

The law provides a balance- as has always been the case - that restricting facilities in this way can be done if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.