A Woman's Place is Speaking up in Wales (Cardiff Meeting next week)

[PlonitbatPlonit]

Just wanted to see who is going to this, and let Mumsnetters know it is happening if you didn't already. It's going to be a great meeting I think - with a choir singing too!

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-womans-place-is-speaking-up-in-wales-tickets-43752975327

MsBeaujangles I'm probably not explaining it very well!

The law doesn't give an opinion on the causes of gender identity. But "belief" is a protected characteristic, as is the absence of belief - it's not just gender that is a protected characteristic. So do WP have the protected characteristic of a belief (absence of belief) in gender? I should add that this has never been litigated, so I have no idea if it would succeed or not. But I do think it is capable of being argued.

posyfossils, this may sound like an ad-hominem attack, but you must be a terrible lawyer, ot you are deliberating stating half truths.

However, the EA does not insist that those who share that protected characteristic must be given access to single sex facilities.

That is sort of true, however the burden to exempt is exceptionally high, and is not implied to cover, for instance changing rooms, toilets.
And all guidance asserts they should be available to the protected characteristic because actual lawyers who understand it clearly cannot forsee a scenario where exemptions would be seen as proportional to achieve the aim of equality.

Possyfossils
And to add, since this implication and guidance is now 8 years old with no significant problems, it would be nigh on impossible to contest it successfully from this point forward.

You have that hopelessly wrong I'm afraid. On every single point.

I disagree with your assertion crisp.
There has been a gradual shift in some organisation's narratives about exceptions. I have been tracking changes in guidance in a number of sectors. In 2013-2014, generally, it was suggested that it was 'trans inclusive' to provide gender neutral toilets and changing facilities for those that didn't want to use same-sex provision. This has shifted in some cases, but not all, to guidance suggesting transgender people should use whatever facilities they chose and any objectors should use alternative provision. There hasn't been a change in law or any specific case law to warrant this shift. I can actually see where it originated from and can clearly see how others have simply accepted the 'updated' advice. I doubt that legal advice has even been taken. I think the organisations I have tracked have just cut and pasted updates from model guidance passed to them.
I think it would be good for everybody for there to be a case to see what the court says. Take for example a 15 year old male (who identifies as a girl) wanting to change and sleep in female changing rooms and dormitories. I am confident that a third space would be considered proportionate and I think society would not stand for a solution that meant females lost access to their single sex spaces. It would be disproportionate to expect a cohort of females to use 'an alternative' space whilst a single trans young person used the designate female-provision.
We need to re-visit why we have single sex provision. Seeing as it usually relates to situations where our sexed bodies are/ can be exposed, it is non sensical to suggest that the sexed bodies of some people 'don't count' because of how some people identify. Can you really see a court thinking otherwise?

I think it would be good for everybody for there to be a case to see what the court says. Take for example a 15 year old male (who identifies as a girl) wanting to change and sleep in female changing rooms and dormitories. I am confident that a third space would be considered proportionate

I disagree, again that would be open to interpretation, and quite likely conservative parents would certainly see it that way.... however I don't think it can be argued that there is any statistical risk of harm, of allowing the trans girl to access female spaces, under these conditions. It would have to be argued on projection and supposition.
In a highly Puritanical framing

I'm not sure somebody feeling uncomfortable would be a basis alone for triggering a plausible exemption.

Why do you think that school provide separate changing rooms, toilets and sleeping arrangements on school trips? Do you honestly think it is about reinforcing/respecting their gender identities!
I am staggered by your willingness to only consider the needs and wants of trans children and your disregard for others.
I work with young trans people and young people with a myriad of needs and vulnerabilities. Fortunately the schools I work with are committed to all of them, not just the trans kids!

Crisp, is is very obvious you don’t have a teenage daughter. Do not come onto a parenting forum, consisting largely of mothers, and tell us that there is no risk to girls in sharing sleeping space with males, framing dissent as puritanical. That is a disgraceful thing to say. Girls need privacy and safe spaces away from males. Do not try to gaslight me into not keeping my children safe. Don’t you dare come here and spout stuff like this at me and other mothers of girls.

crispbuttyfan

So single sex spaces are just for conservatives and puritans?

Many teenage girls, who have no additional needs, who have not experienced trauma and do not fear being attacked, do not want to undress or be partially undressed in front of people with males sexed bodies. Society does not expect them to, neither does the law - thank goodness!

For any posters reading this latest turn, please do not worry. I am very confident that girls will continue to be offered spaces for female-sexed bodied people. Any suggestion otherwise is nonsense!

Calling women Puritans when they don't want to strip off in front of males is the oldest trick in the book. We see you.

This is about power and control over women.

MsBeaujangles

Thank you for the reassurance. I really hope that you are correct.

I do worry about the attitude of crispbuttyfan and others who think similarly becoming normalised and acceptable.

Having been directed to this opinion piece by Stephen Whittle from another thread, it became clear to me that the objective of prominent activists is to replace sex with gender in law. Stephen Whittle argues that this is gender has already replaced sex, and that this happened when the GRA came into force in 2004.

Do you think my fears are justified?

In the court case today where Tara Wolf was convicted of hitting a women's rights activist, the judge insisted that the defendent was referred to by their preferred pronouns. We live in a country where a female victim is obliged to call their male attacker by their preferred female pronouns. It doesn't give me confidence that reason will prevail.

And to add, since this implication and guidance is now 8 years old with no significant problems, it would be nigh on impossible to contest it successfully from this point forward.

I'm afraid I don't quite see it the same way as you.

We are having erosions into women's spaces now - there have been numerous citations and examples. Including women's prisons, the NHS, women's sports.

But one question - if it really is as simple as you claim - why won't TAs even discuss it? Why are TAs shutting down meetings, punching feminist grandmothers, trying to shut down mumsnet? Why the #NoDebate - if this is as risk free to women as you say - then we won't have a problem, will we? You will be able to provide clear evidence that our fears are unfounded.

I suspect the reason is you know we're right. Incidents are happening right now. Self ID is a serious threat to women's privacy, safety, dignity, equality. You just want us to shut up and stop raising awareness.

Btw - the TAs that bullied the hotel into cancelling have found out which school the meeting was hosted at - and are going after them now.

The meeting has happened, it was peaceful. (Because no TAs knew where it was) and genuine outsiders have confirmed there was no hatred there.

I was also encouraged at last night's meeting that there was a good mix of young and old, mostly women but about 20% to 25% men (my estimation, so don't take that as fact!)

And I liked the way that people, as we filed in and found places to sit, turned and chatted with total strangers next to us in a spirit of solidarity and warmth. It was all very natural and in good cheer.

These were all people who had actually made an effort, left the house, turned up, talked with each other, listened to each other, interacted. Last night, we were a hall full of people together, having a discussion and responding to each other, in a spirit of openness and respect, about the rights of women and girls.

I'm really glad I was there.

Agree @LightofaSilveryMoon . It was obvious that some people were a bit stressed, after the shannigans involved, so a real relief that there was a friendly and warm atmosphere, on and off the stage. One of the women who spoke after the main speakers, made the very good point that women’s rights are always treated as minority rights, yet women are over half the population. We are over half the electorate too, and we need to vote on this issue. We need to make this clear to our MPs and opposition. Talk to our friends, get women together on this. so many women feel scared to speak out but together we are powerful.

I suppose, politically, women have to be seen as a whole half the country, to be powerful.

Notable letter during the suffragettes campaign in 1913:

“Sir,

“Everyone seems to agree upon the necessity of putting a stop to Suffragist outrages; but no one seems certain how to do so.

“There are two, and only two, ways in which this can be done:

“1. Kill every woman in the United Kingdom.

“2. Give women the vote.”

And remember - there were women who were against women having the vote.

Yes, SirVixofVixHall!

Despite the stupid and cowardly shenanigans by the original venue, it turned out to be a very, very positive event!
I'm very glad to see that more such meetings are planned in various areas. Very inspiring!

By the way, if the mner who suggested everyone come here at the end is here now, I'd like to raise a virtual glass to her!

Anita where have you seen that? When I attended the new location, it crossed my mind that they'd be in for some trouble. I really hope not.

It was in Pink News, I think. Quite a lot of references on Twitter. The Times today has a good opinion piece by Janice Turrner which refers to it too (TRAs going after a governor of the primary school who they suspect arranged the use of the school hall). (The Times also has a good news article about the outcome of Tara Wood's trial.)

From crispbutty
"I'm not sure somebody feeling uncomfortable would be a basis alone for triggering a plausible exemption."

I don't really know where to start when talking about this. I thought the whole point of the transpersons' argument was that they don't "feel' like their biological sex fits their personality?

So women have to give up their enshrined in law rights to sex-segregated spaces because some people don't feel happy about it but parents of girls aren't allowed to feel apprehensive about their daughters sharing said sex-segregated spaces with male-bodied adolescents?

I went to the Cardiff meeting, it was brilliant, sensible, level-headed, full of good humour. I did not hear one single snide or defamatory word said against transpeople. The discussion was political, women applying critical thinking to an issue that affects 52% of the population, with particular concern that our daughters and granddaughters do not lose any of the hard-won rights of the C20th.

Thanks Gasp0de. Will have a look. Am really concerned for the bod who permitted the meeting - they'll be a target and I want to lend my support.

Love the name btw - possibly one of my favourite TP characters

@CisMyArse Cardiff Feminist Network are taking the credit for getting the Mercure to cancel, one admin is boasting that she is on this thread "monitoring" it, someone is asking about who the choir are so that they know who their enemies are and they are complaining to the Labour Party, LEA and the school about a school governor who is "forcing the school to break the Equality Act." One is also urging others to harass MNHQ.

I am disgusted with women silencng other women especially the implied threat to a choir and a primary school, big cowards. If WP are so wrong, turn up and debate with them. Have a meeting with them. Invite them to CFN and talk. Take the opposite side in public debates and on the radio and on talk shows. Hassling a primary school for the crime of allowing women to meet together and accusing a choir of being your enermies what century is this again.