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

There is a very interesting twitter comment by a male writer made last night after the Cardiff meeting,
"I attended #WPUK as I wanted to make up my own mind about them. I was braced for bigotry, bile, hatred. I saw respect, community, and a refreshing passion for dialogue. Astonished at how misrepresented @WomansPlaceUK have been."

I'm confused too. is crispbutty saying that she doesn't read through the thread, just watches out for notifications about her username?

crispbutty is saying they are not crispbuttyfan

That’s a very distinctive name. I don’t know if people still do it but sometimes a polite request to change names works.

Two different people, thanks...

crispbuttyfan - who was on the thread being... interesting, and crispbutty - who was accidentally tagged by someone replying to crispbuttyfan

It is unclear at this point whether cbf is a fan of crispbutty the poster or actual crisp sandwiches...

oh ok. there is a crispbutty and a crispbuttyfan.

god how confusing.

I guess there's just a shared appreciation of crisp buttys. Ironically I'm currently munching chicken and thyme crisp with a few slices of chicken. 8/10

I used to love a good ham sandwich with cheese and onion crisps. White crusty bread for preference.

TGLWGH, TGLWGH, TGLWGH.

I'm repeating that to myself while counting to ten a lot these days

There are some posters who maybe don't know about all this or who just disagree (but still debate) and then there are some that maybe it's best for me not to engage with...

I fully agree that it feels like gas lighting and abusive behaviour when someone is obviously not genuinely engaging with the discussion they are attempting to take over.

I think anyone who has read Cripbuttyfan's posts has the measure of them truscum. I hope you know that very few people are nodding along with that language, no matter where they stand on self id.

Shame on you Crispbuttyfan. Take your abuse elsewhere.

Not sure if this has been shared already, shameless backpedaling from the hotel.

Some body's been taking to their solicitor.....

Taking or talking maybe!

I wonder what the legal position is in refusing to provide a service to WPUK. Are organisations allowed to pick and choose who is able to access their provision?

Private organisations should be allowed to choose whether or not they provide a service. The tweet on the other hand is utterly libellous.

But private organisations aren't allowed to choose if they provide a service. A hotel could not refuse to provide a service to people because they are black, gay, women or any other protected characteristic.
I personally think that refusing to honour a booking by women organising politically on women's issues is really dodgy legally. And there first tweet said they were refusing the booking due to who was making the booking, rather than on safety grounds as this revisionist tweet claims. Would like to hear a legal view of this.

their, not there.

Well, I hope the hotel had evidence that there were real and tangible risks to safety. Who was threatening not to uphold the peace?
WPUK’s custom was refused because of fears to safety.
Either this is discrimination through the back door or the police need to be informed.

Does WPUK fall into protected characteristics though?

I really enjoyed it. Great speeches. I feel so angry today though, that in 2018, in Britain, women cannot meet to discuss legislation that directly affects them, without the level of deceit and disruption that we had last night. I can’t get my head round it. Many of the women there had spent decades working against injustice, for equality, it is insane that we are being likened to racists. It took us over three hours to drive to the venue, so to then have to find the new location was stressful. I was relieved when I saw the police , but they must have been a bit bemused to be watching over a queue of friendly women of all ages, (with some men in there too).

The debate was respectful and good hearted, no suggestion of hate or bigotry. Very little mention of trans people, just much needed discussion on the impact on women of any changes to our sex based protections. This was discussion focused on women and girls.

I had to leave straight afterwards as we had such a long drive home, I would have loved to come to the pup and chat with people.

@CrispButtyFan

You said

To be protected by EA law, one has to intend to live their life as the opposite sex.

This is just wrong - I'm a lawyer.

To be protected by EA law one has to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which is defined as any one who is or who is perceived as someone who "is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

So if I am mistaken for a trans man, which I sometimes am, then the EA steps in despite me not actually being a trans man. Equally, if I announce that I am intending to transition - or I change a couple of attributes such as my name or pronouns - then despite having made no other changes and not intending to go any further with it, then the EA applies there too.

As it should - nobody should be victimised or discriminated against for being gender non conforming, so the wider application is in my view a good thing.

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

@FeministBadger

I think it does - belief (or lack of belief) in an internal and innate gender identity constitutes a belief which is a protected characteristic.

Also, sex is still a protected characteristic.

Thank you for clarifying @PosyFossilsShoes - I get confused because sex is a protected characteristic but not one of the characteristics that gets incorporated into hate crime legislation so never quite sure!

Posy. I am a bit lost about this:
I think it does - belief (or lack of belief) in an internal and innate gender identity constitutes a belief which is a protected characteristic

I imagined the protections were to stop you being discriminated against because of your gender identity. The implication being you should be able to hold a non conforming identity without being disadvantaged because of it.

I didn’t think the law gave an opinion on the causes of gender identity (innate or socially constructed) or that it legislated for beliefs around it.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick (re your comments and/or the law)?

so glad it went ahead. must be your organising skills. Though I am not sure I agree with the description they have been given on one twitter page.

Egg mayo and salt and vinegar.