Duncan Bannatyne says some men who use women only spaces are perverts

[EspressoMachiato]

I think he's wrong.

I think any man who uses a woman only space (outside of the janitor/cleaners when there are no women present) is a pervert as soon as he crosses the threshold

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15477807/Former-Dragons-Den-star-Duncan-Bannatyne-brands-biological-males-seek-access-female-spaces-perverts-paedophiles.html?utmsfcservref=15438913&ito=social-twittermailonline&nscampaign=1490&utmsfpostref=655157407&nsmchannel=rss

I have. Your passage in italics is not from the Equality Act 2010 but from EHRC guidance which is now out of date following the Supreme Court ruling.

It’s from EHRC guidance which is now out of date.

why so snide? You are talking about transwomen, which usually means men who like to wear women’s clothes.

Are people really being young boys with their mums into this? What a ridiculous argument.

Only a certain type of man goes into women’s facilities.

It certainly does not reflect the actual wording of the Equality Act!

Thanks for clarifying. Frightening how it was misinterpreted.

Improvements for whom? Women? The Supreme Court did that by defining sex as biological sex a single sex spaces are lawful.

What’s snide about asking a simple question?

You said dressed accordingly in a response to a poster asking why trans identifying men don’t use facilities that are for their sex. Do you mean regressive stereotypical dress like dresses and skirts? Does that make someone a woman? I don’t wear those and prefer t-shirts and trousers, does that make me a man?

This seems to be the new angle they are taking. Because young boys are taken into female changing rooms by their mums this means that adult men should also have access to spaces where women and girls are undressing.

it will be laughed out of court.

Where have I said that? I have not made any comment that would suggest that I have a stereotypical view of a man or a woman. I have not said anywhere that anyone other than a women should be able to use women only spaces. My view is that an alternative space should be organised.

It doesn’t really matter whether some or many or most or all of them are perverts. The safeguarding response has to be: no men in women’s spaces. That’s the only way we can guarantee safety from male perverts in women’s facilities.

I do think you may have a point through OP, in that I think a higher proportion of TW could be perves vs proportion of men who don’t claim trans identities. Because the very act of dressing up like a woman is often fetish-fuelled in itself. And then trying to ‘pass’ or go ‘stealth’- again- creepy.

It’s a quote from AI

Understanding Access to Single-Sex Services for Trans Individuals
Legal Framework

Under the Equality Act 2010, service providers can offer separate or single-sex services. However, they must ensure that any limitations on access for trans individuals are justified. This means that if a service provider wishes to exclude or limit access to a trans person, they must demonstrate that this action is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim and is proportionate.
Key Considerations

• Proportionality: Service providers must show that excluding a trans person is the least restrictive way to achieve their aim. This could relate to safety, privacy, or other legitimate concerns.
• Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC): The presence or absence of a GRC does not change the requirement for service providers to justify their actions. All trans individuals are protected under the law, regardless of their GRC status.

Examples of Legitimate Aims Service providers may argue that limiting access is necessary for:

• Safety: Ensuring the safety of all users in sensitive environments, such as changing rooms or domestic violence refuges.
• Privacy: Protecting the privacy of individuals in spaces where personal dignity is paramount.
• Decency: Maintaining standards of decency in environments that may be sensitive or vulnerable.

Conclusion In summary, while service providers can establish separate or single-sex services, they must carefully consider the implications of excluding trans individuals. Any such actions must be legally justified as proportionate to achieving a legitimate aim.

@ThatCraftySquid you conveniently missed out what can be a proportionate means and a legitimate aim.

Naomi Cunningham’s latest Substack nails it as always

https://naomicunningham.substack.com/p/protect-the-dolls?triedRedirect=true

You do know that we have national and even global data that shows average physical attributes recorded for males and females and those averages are different?

We know this, why are you pretending you don’t?

At 8 the majority are well able to get themselves changed independently, my 5 year old can! When my husband takes our girls swimming the 5 year old goes in with him as she needs help washing her hair, but our 9 year old daughter goes in ladies on her own, it's definitely not appropriate for her to go into the men's.
Some girls start puberty from 9, and it's not appropriate or fair for then to be sharing a changing space with boys of the same age. There is a sign up saying no boys over 8 allowed into women's changing rooms, but many clearly dont think the rules apply to them!

There is also a shared gender open changing room if mums really don't feel their 8 + boy can get themselves changed, but strangely they don't use it - probably because they don't want to get changed in front of unrelated males. But they expect young girls to do so!

Keeping men out of women’s spaces is always proportionate love.

Not passive aggressive, I’ve just been observing people on these threads over the last year or so who are arguing against female only spaces and claiming that they genuinely can’t tell who is male and who is female.

I can only take these people, like yourself, at their word and accept it although I do believe you are in a tiny minority. Babies and animals can reliably tell so I have no idea why adults wouldn’t be able to tell.

I came up with the name for my observations myself - happy to amend it if you have any other suggestions that sums up the claim you present?

I think the transwoman who sexually assaulted me in a women's toilet was a pervert rather than someone who genuinely wanted to be a woman.

If you genuinely wanted to be a woman, you'd fit in with women and be kind to women as you want to be one of them.

I can't recall any cases of women using their genitals to assault other women in public toilets. Using a penis to attack a woman is very much male behaviour.

You might also want to read the Equality Act of 2010

Thanks for your good luck wishes - I’m not sure why I need them? I have read the Equality Act thank you and understand it quite well. It’s quite clearly worded as it happens.

A proportionate means to a legitimate aim is excluding all males from any place where providing a combined service would not be as effective.

The one aspect in which you are correct is that, as the Supreme Court established, a GRC makes no difference to access - it is a meaningless piece of paper that just allows falsification of a birth certificate. The next government with some balls will need to fix that fraudsters dream of a loophole.

A long established precedent for accepted proportionate means to a legitimate aim is single sex toilets, single sex changing, hospital wards, single sex hostels and support groups etc.

It is perfectly lawful to exclude trans identifying males from female only spaces because they are male.

730.A provider can deliver separate services for men and women where providing a combined service would not be as effective. A provider can deliver separate services for men and women in different ways or to a different extent where providing a combined service would not be as effective and it would not be reasonably practicable to provide the service otherwise than as a separate service provided differently for each sex. In each case such provision has to be justified.

• It would not be unlawful for a charity to set up separate hostels, one for homeless men and one for homeless women, where the hostels provide the same level of service to men and women because the level of need is the same but a unisex hostel would not be as effective.

Single-sex services: paragraph 27 Effect 733.This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow the provision of single-sex services. 734.Single sex services are permitted where:

• only people of that sex require it;
• there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;
• if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;
• they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);
• they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or
• they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7

More explanation in other sections of the act.

I think this was the argument presented by a certain male barrister who identifies as female when he was discussing his wishful thinking on Woman’s Hour. A bit desperate imo.

Yup, still a jerk.

There was an AIBU recently about making Mumsnet for women only. I'm all for it.

If you have to ask those questions, it's unlikely you're female.

Respect does not include allowing men with genuine body dysmorphia into female only spaces - they are still men and most are heterosexual.