Feminism: Sex & gender discussions
Want to know why women are livid? (trans thread)
Datun · 22/02/2018 17:01
Want to know why so many posts start with 'Trans people should have full rights...but'...?
Because the equality act is being manipulated to elevate the rights of one protected characteristic over another.
Being mis-used. Being breached, in fact. It smells wrong, it feels wrong, it is wrong.
Because the equality act is designed to be fair. All protected groups have equal value.
It's got the word in the damn title.
But the one thing this doesn't feel like, is equal.
Equality decisions must fairly balance the needs of everyone affected. This does not mean treating everyone the same. Because sometimes treating people differently is the least discriminatory outcome overall.
So when a business wants to implement a new policy they must take into account how it will impact on all the protected characteristics and then work out the fairest and least discriminatory way to do it. Life doesn't happen in a vacuum. A rule for one will impact others too and the Equality Act has been designed to reflect this reality. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against someone if overall it's the fairest thing to do for all concerned. The key phrase here is 'a proportionate means to a legitimate aim'.
And in no-one's book does fairness mean boys' sleeping in girls' accommodation, beating them at sport, making girls uncomfortable or working in a rape refuge.
It is not transphobic to raise this at work, in school, in leisure activities.
The gaslighting has to stop.
What we have been witnessing is no longer about fairness and inclusivity, it's about a cohort of men actively campaigning to hoodwink or coerce the public into validating NOT their identity, but their authority.
Can a refuge for women employ only women staff? Yes, of course they can. We all accept this because despite it being unfair to men it is overall the fairest thing to do for everyone involved. And for exactly the same reasons, it is lawful to exclude people who have reassigned their sex/gender, from that job role. In this instance, the internal gender feelings of the employee is not as important as the impact of their perceived maleness. The needs and impact on vulnerable women seeking refuge are greater than the needs and impact on a transgender person seeking employment. In this instance the balance falls squarely favour of women.
A transactivist will want everyone to draw everyone's attention solely to the impact and unfairness of that situation on the transgender people and claim DISCRIMINATION!. But that's just not how it works. It's written down in law – Occupational Requirements Schedule 9 Part 1.
There a lots of these legal exemptions written into Equality Law. They have been put there to be used and to protect women. We have to start insisting that they get applied. All of us. Now.
Here are some more examples that this time apply to services (Schedule 3, Part 7 Sections 26-28).
Can a woman ask for a female-born HCP? Yes, she can. It's not transphobic to say no to a transwoman in that context. She's not saying no because they are transgender – it's because they were born male and as someone born female she prefers the same.
It's written in law (Schedule 3, Part 7, Sections 26-28) and examples are set out in the Equality Act: “If a service is used by one or more people or involves physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex”.
What about changing rooms? If a TIM wants to use a female changing room with individual lockable cubicles and no-one minds, then fine. The overall balance is fair. But if people do object, and for reasons of privacy, dignity and safety when they in a state of undress, and they don't feel able to use the changing rooms with just a flimsy curtain that doesn't close properly, then the balance of fairness changes.
The equality act does not say oh well, too bad. The retailer must take into account the impact on other people too (women). If there are reasonable options available to the retailer that makes it fairer for all then they must consider them.
Insisting all transgender people must use the facility of their natal sex would be unfair to them, but this doesn't mean the only fair option is to allow them into the facility for the opposite sex or to make the whole thing uni-sex and to hell with how the women feel. It could be enough to provide them with an alternative, just for them. This is a fair balance that considers everyone.
But a retailer doesn't know the impact on us unless tell we tell them. Women are socialised to not object. Which is part of the problem. Let's stop doing that. Let's hold our retailers to account to uphold the equality act by telling them we object, and why. They must take that into account.
Don't wait for it to actually happen. Get them to formalise their policies and insist they take women seriously from the start.
What about fairness in sport?
The equality act is quite clear. It's written into Equality law Schedule 16 Part 1. It's is entirely lawful to restrict participation of transgender people if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition.
“A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.
The IOC have issued guidelines that rely on testosterone being the determining factor and deciding that reducing it will eliminate the advantage TIMs have. But when men are routinely beating women, it's quite clear that this is not an adequate determinate.
Sporting bodies, Swim UK, etc, should be able to provide evidence of a level playing field. Otherwise it is neither fair or safe for women and this is in breach of equality law.
What about communal accommodation - Girl Guides, school trips, dorms?
Again there is a exemption in the equality Act to deal with this (Schedule 23). It explicitly states that transgender people can be excluded from communal accommodation for use by one sex if that is that's the fairness thing to do overall. In other words, the least discriminatory option. The needs of all pupils must be considered. The protection of the dignity and privacy of girls, is a legitimate aim. Furthermore, requiring pupils to share accommodation with the opposite sex raises specific issues around menstruation, risk of pregnancy, etc. Any institution which fails to acknowledge and accommodate these issues when formulating policy will risk breaching the EA.
The EA does need tightening up. Not ripping up. TIMs are already assuming they have a whole bowl of fruit and making everyone else assume it, when, in actual fact, they only have a couple of plums.
It's now no surprise that the favoured narrative is that trans people are oppressed, abused, murdered, at risk. Because it is that description that has somehow elevated the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' above 'sex' in people's mind. It's completely wrong.
They have equal value As does sexual orientation. Claiming lesbians are transphobic for not sleeping with natal males, is NOT upholding the equality law. And I realise it's only individuals who are mainly saying this, but Stonewall have refused to clarify that homosexuality means same sex attraction.
We have to change the narrative here.
We can change it. We have the right to change it.
We just need to do it.
OldCrone · 17/02/2022 06:38
In a tiny number of cases (less than 5000 in the UK) a transgender person may have changed the sex classification on their birth certificate. Whilst it is lawful to exclude this person from a female-only changing room on the grounds of gender reassignment (part 7 Section 28) it is virtually impossible to implement this legal exception in practice. This is because the birth certificate of someone who has legally reassigned their sex to female is indistinguishable from the birth certificate of someone who was born female.
I don't know where this quote is from Redlake, as you didn't post a link, but this shows exactly why self ID is so dangerous and why the TRA line that changing the GRA has no effect on the Equality Act single sex exceptions is a lie.
Under self ID, instead of 5000 people with a birth certificate which shows that they are legally the opposite sex to that which they were born, there are potentially 500,000 (or more) such people. Most of these people will not have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, and some are likely to be predatory males who have spotted a loophole which allows them access to women only spaces.
NecessaryScene · 17/02/2022 06:56
The whole thing has snowballed.
It started from the position that "some people role-play as the opposite sex". Which is indeed true.
We ended up with 2 streams of legal handling of that - one of which was fine, the other which was wrong-headed from the start.
The good stream is the Equality Act - you can't discriminate against someone because they role play as the opposite sex. But any handling of their role play has to be balanced with the rights of people of the opposite sex. The Equality Act is largely solid.
The bad stream is the Gender Recognition Act. That started with "the state will participate a little in the role play (with gatekeeping)". But that was enough to break the entire system.
Because then a European judgement expanded it to "the state will participate completely in the role play (with gatekeeping)".
And that is trying to expand to "the state will participate entirely in the role play, no questions asked". And we increasingly see "individuals are compelled to participate in the role play". And in stuff like sport "the entirety of women's sport has to serve as backdrop to men's role play".
A "right for individuals to have their role play upheld" is not sustainable. It's like trying to create a "Truman Show" type bubble around an individual where everyone else is just a supporting actor who has to sustain the illusion.
The Gender Recognition Act ultimately does have to be repealed to undo the entire strand of trying to legislate to maintain an illusion. As Helen Joyce said, you can't permit "1+1=0" in just one place and expect it not to undermine the entirety of mathematics. The same applies for permitting lies in rights law.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.