Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Mumsnet inspired camping discussed in legal blog

38 replies

justicewomen · 22/03/2018 23:38

www.oldsquare.co.uk/news-and-media/articles/that-friday-feeling

Hopefully the EHRC will finally wake up to the fact that they need to start thinking about this clash of protected characteristics

OP posts:
Testingnamechange1 · 23/03/2018 08:46

For me it is about facts and honesty. When collecting data I don’t think men should be recorded as women. And although I am fine with unisex facilities if they are labelled as such, I am not ok with it saying women and then including some men.

ReluctantCamper · 23/03/2018 09:18

@Jon66 , answered your point, come back

oh, a discussion wasn't really what you were up for was it?

Reddwolff · 23/03/2018 09:43

When they talk about so-called trans-exclusionary rad fems they never specify who they are excluding. It's men. You can't change sex and the Friday night swimmers were illustrating the fact.

The comfort of others could easily be ensured by recognising this and where conflict is the trans person uses a separate area or service which means they don't impinge on the rights of the majority and everyone's rights are protected. But in practice it won't and doesn't work that way because they are recognised legally as the sex they identify with irrespective of that they are male (or female as the case may be). They can claim that status as a female and that they are discriminated against on that basis and if it is another female they trump them as their protest at them exposing themselves in a changing room is considered to be discrimination against them on the basis of sex. I'm not sure why identity is seen as somehow different in basis when the fact is that identity currently and with new self-ID provisions means they are recognised under law as legally the sex they identify with not the sex they are.

That issue is completely dodged, and of course that these people get to quadruple dip and any unfairness and unequal privilege relating to it is not addressed. They get the benefits of being recognised as men and retain the advantages of that afterwards, they get to access women's spaces, awards, positions etc, they get to access LGB spaces, awards, positions etc and they get special recognition as trans based on legal recognition of that mysterious soul-like quality of gender identity.

All along they just assume they are identical to women, and/or transition will make it so and they don't recognise that with self-ID anyone can simply say it is so and it cannot be challenged if they enshrine it in law. They can claim sex discrimination based on the sex they identify with and the law will be blind to the effect on people actually that sex and their rights and won't see the conflict in rights that ensue.

Jon66 · 23/03/2018 11:24

reluctantcamper please explain what course of action could be taken. I don't understand how this hypothetical could lead to a sex discrimination claim. Against who?

Kneedeepinunicorns · 23/03/2018 12:26

Gawd the sealioning is getting so classic it's like quoting the cartoon. I'll see if Farage has any spare fish left.

ContemporaryPankhurst · 23/03/2018 12:41

I was about to order a tent, I am disappointed that there is no camping now.

The article certainly highlights that the legal profession is not in possession of the full facts and slow off the mark with this one. I think the widening of the scope of what trans-gender means has caught many unaware. I was a staunch trans ally of the live-and-let live persuasion until I did more research and many people resolved the potential conflict in rights by denying women's rights. I also question the ideology. I think the notion that gender (a socially constructed and changeable tool of oppression) is innate is sexist and dangerous. It is a means of saying 'she/they all wanted it'.

For law to be applied equally and objective it cannot be based on the subjective. That is bad law no matter what position in the ideological debate one takes.

Flooffloof · 23/03/2018 12:58

Tent on order, suppose i have to cancel it now.
Would have been a great laugh with y'all.
Even if the message is not as we would hope, even if it's making all women out to be lunatics, it's at least getting the message out "there"
None of us women will agree with everything said, but getting it said does help.
If no one knows anything about it, seemingly everyone, then it won't ever be discussed outside of mumsnet.
I have shared loads on fb and tw, to a deafening silence, I just hope that some people who saw it go and research and eventuality contribute.

morningrunner · 23/03/2018 13:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

thanksjaneshusbandatcaresouth · 23/03/2018 14:34

I don’t believe that Robin and Nicola wrote this.

For as a conversation between two female lawyers lengthens, the probability of it centring on the true identity of Xenia on mumsnet approaches 1.

I think a man wrote it.

Or may Robin and Nicola are pretending they have never heard of mumsnet? Doing a “what is Gaza” homage maybe?

CertainHalfDesertedStreets · 23/03/2018 14:35

🐟🐟🐠🐠🐠🐠🐡🐙🐙🐡

A varied diet...

OlennasWimple · 23/03/2018 16:12

I love the penultimate paragraph in the blog post:

And when government proposals to amend the Gender Recognition Act are published, wide engagement with that process, particular by service provision organisations, will be needed to ensure that the final provisions are sensible and workable

The previous lack of consultation and engagement with those who the changes would affect the most is at the heart of this - it's good to see this recognised

Jon66 · 23/03/2018 21:58

Interesting that I am accused of refusing to debate but justicewomen appears to be unable to answer a very basic question about how and why there might or might not be a legal course of action under the circumstances she describes. Clearly justicewomen likes to think she has knowledge of justice, but it appears doesn't. I would also be interested why a court, she names incorrectly but I assume she means the European Court of Human Rights, would be 'thinking' about this? Is that their function then?

justicewomen · 24/03/2018 17:44

I am sorry Jon66 but I have been busy working.

I am surprised that you don't understand what a potential claim would be because I set it out in the penultimate paragraph of my last post.

Another example would be a domestic violence victim feeling deterred from using a domestic violence shelter with shared bedrooms because of a policy, criteria or practice that effectively required them to share with a transgender women who was physically male. That women could bring a claim against the shelter for indirect sex discrimination (under section 29 and 19 of the Equality Act). The Claimant would argue that such a rule puts her at disadvantage because of her sex (citing issues of privacy, fear of male violence etc). The Shelter would have to show, as a defence that such a rule was a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. I cannot predict the result.

Oh and the reference to the EHRC is not to a court, it is to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the UK's equality statutory body

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread