Trans hate (I don't) and the same old, same old

[RetiringRita]

Well I've been on a few threads this weekend and the one that's been hijacked yet again was the question of trans hate on mumsnet.
The OP asked for opinions on whether that was a fair statement yet within minutes the question was ignored and the same FWR posters were out in force. They didn't want to answer the question so targeted their posts to state their agenda.

Sex as defined by The Surpreme Court ruling
TW perverts in women's prisons
TW perverts in female loos
Men in dresses
FTM having ASD or mental illness.

It appears those of us who sit on the fence are not entitled to be there. Those who cannot be bullied get shouted down.

I have been called the following :

Hand Maiden
Trans Ally
Not part of the sisterhood
Delusional
Captured
Shameful
Mentally ill
A liar (frequently)
A man

None apply to me.

Am I being unreasonable to ask for some understanding and compassion for trans people who don't fit the stereotypes listed?

The case was about the meaning of the words “sex”, “women” and “men” in the context of the EA 2010. The court ruled that these words as used in the act refer to people according to birth sex, however they also set out specific circumstances in which protections for women may apply to trans women and / or exclude trans men.

All pulic places and facilities are accessible to all regardless of race, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, sex, gender reassignment status or maternity status except when it is designated for a single category of one of these as a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, under the Equalities Act.

They had this. A new building was built for them.

They rejected it. They said it was 'othering them'.

However, why should this group of male people be in a female prison at all?
What other group of vulnerable male people are given any place in a female only prison rather than in a vulnerable male prisoner estate? Can you provide us the details please?

And I will ask again,

Can you please tell me what the difference is between a male person who has had their testes and penis removed due to injury or disease and one who has elected to have this penis and testes removed to fit their philosophical belief about their identity?

Why should one male person be given access to a female prison estate and the other male person sent to a male prison, in your view?

Yes I understand that thank you .

They are not your private places.

Yes. They set out examples but not an exhaustive list of what provisions can and cannot exclude male people.

Quote those specific circumstances then.

Transmen can be excluded from female single sex spaces but that doesn't mean that they are allowed to use male single sex spaces.

If someone mistakes a transwomen for an actual female and discriminates against them on the basis of their perceived sex they can claim for sex discrimination but it does not mean they are allowed to access female single sex spaces.

No male people actually have the right to expect to not share a public single sex provision such as a toilet with other male people.

They can be excluded from female spaces.
The EHRC extends that to have to be excluded. That’s an over extension. It’s not tested in law. It’s disproportionate, unreasonable, unenforceable and totally incompatible with protections against discrimination

If it's a single sex space then all males are excluded otherwise it's a mixed sex space.

The ERHC are not extending anything . You either can have single sex spaces or mixed sex spaces

Blimey, it's women who are being discriminated against, not transwomen.

It doesn't need to be tested in law it already has been at the supreme court

With the way things are in the UK we are to believe that a Body was so stunning and brave as to say that TWANW?

This is another of your fallacious comparisons.

You have so far tried to falsely leverage lesbians and now you are falsely leveraging people who are autistic. Surely you must be aware that what you are doing here by politically leveraging these groups this can be pointed out to be homophobic and ableist?

We do not segregate people by mental illness from publicly accessible single sex spaces. It would be wrong to do so and there is no evidence to show that there needs to be

You seem, though, to have dismissed the evidence that no male person at any stage of 'transition' has a lower propensity to commit sex crime than the general UK population. That is actually the evidence needed to make decisions about robust safeguarding. You didn't bother to look at all the statistics, you are only focused on rape. Why?

Please tell us clearly, how many female people should be harmed before you agree that male people over the age of about 8 years old should be excluded from all female single sex spaces?

Please give us a number. In the past, we had a male person declare that over 100 per year would be enough to be harmed. Do you agree? We had another poster state something like 35. What about that?

Or, is it the potentially 27 female people that were raped by those male people that you have just dismissed as not being significant enough?

Is it 27 female people being harmed that is acceptable collateral before you allow women to campaign for something that you dismiss?

Would you care to quantify it? Because right now you have dismissed rapists as being insignificant in changing your personal view.

Exactly.

No it hasn’t .
The court didn’t specify what you are claiming.
It’s an interpretation of what the judgement means that has not been tested in law.

Nope. That’s your interpretation.

Zero new points. Thanks though.

oh.. ok.

So, because it is untested in law, you should be able to shame any person who disagrees with you until when? Until it IS tested by law?

So, does that mean when NHS Fife and Darlington cases have judgements, we can expect to not be shamed for wanting single sex changing rooms?

And does that then mean we have to wait for a toilet court case before we stop being shamed by others for stating that anything that is described as 'female' is a single sex provision and should be kept single sex?

Gosh... someone should tell the Supreme Court judges that next time that they make a judgement they need to list everything that they consider the judgement covers.

Because otherwise, it will be argued that anything not specified is not covered. Fuck... they were negligent in their duty. They must not understand law very well.

All courts in the UK* are bound by the decisions of a higher court. This means that all courts and tribunals are bound by the Supreme court judgment. The judgment says that single sex exemptions are on the basis of biological sex so no lower court can make a ruling that doesn't follow this.

The supreme court was very clear that single sex exemptions are on the basis of biological sex. The Equality Act is clear that you cannot discriminate on the basis of sex unless you use the single sex exemptions.

*may not apply in NI

"Am I being unreasonable to ask for some understanding and compassion for trans people who don't fit the stereotypes listed?"

I wish people would understand the premise of safeguarding. Not all men are rapists but it doesn't stop us being able, legally, to stipulate when women need privacy and separate spaces away from men. Innocent men understand and respect this. Why can't trans people understand and respect this?

I’m not sure you understand how the law works?

I think the point is to stand up to what the OP regards as discrimination.

I agree with this stance. Not to engage in heated argument because we're both entrenched in our POV. But to make sure both voices are heard. Because I think a lot of the shouting from the GC side just wants us to shut up and go away.

@RetiringRita apologies if I've got that wrong! It's my take on the situation.

You are wrong.

Here's a link to the screen shot.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supreme-court-judgment

What Tandora is proposing is that faux single sex spaces where a few of the opposite sex are allowed. might be permitted instead of single sex spaces. This is untested in law but arguably would put service users onto a sticky wicket legally as if women used the faux single sex space purporting to be a single sex female space and encountered a man they may have a sexual harassment claim.