"Reforming the GRA will not change anything because the EA will remain the same"

[PikesPeaked]

^^ The Govt's response to the petition:

We are clear that we have no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single sex spaces. Any GRA reform will not change the protected characteristics in the Equality Act nor the exceptions under the Equality Act that allow provision for single and separate sex spaces.
The Government does not intend to change the safeguarding processes that are currently used in refuges and healthcare services. Providers of women-only services can continue to provide services in a different way, or even not provide services to trans individuals, provided it is objectively justified on a case-by-case basis. The same can be said about toilets, changing rooms or single sex activities. Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, provided it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.

It's all totally irrelevant. Yes, the EA currently allows exclusion of trans people from sex-discriminated provision, but providers aren't doing so.

I don't believe it's because they are misguided by the information given to them by TRA organisations. M&S, TopShop etc all have legal departments to check the legalities of policy changes.

I suspect that they kowtow to the TRAs because it's probably more hassle to go through all the justification of exclusion than to just bow to the TRA pressure. Not to mention the hassle of dealing with the negative publicity of "Bigot!"

I have no idea what you mean by 'women'. I wish to keep men out.

Vancouver Rape Crisis centre is not anti-trans, but thank you for confirming that you find 'odious' a group of women who have the best interests of traumatised women as their priority.

Thus speaks transactivism.

It's entirely possible that you know little about the rape crisis centre case, specifically thatvthey helped the trans-identified male after an assault, for which they were repaid with a decade long legal battle and tens of thousands of pounds in legal costs. Nor do you know perhaps that every other rape crisis centre would have taken on the trans-identified male as a counsellor so that this case looks more and more vindictive when you read up on it. Perhaps do that.

In fact as a contributor of 'a significant chunk of equality law' perhaps you would be well advised to do a little more research all round.

Imagine you run a group counselling session that is provided for female victims of sexual assault. If someone who is obviously a transwomen joins, you could exclude her under the EA exceptions if it is for a legitimate aim and is proportional.

But alternatively someone who might be a transwomen joins but you are not sure. Therefore you would like to ask her for her GRC before excluding her. The problem is not that you cannot ask for a GRC, you can. The problem is that if you cannot tell they are trans it would be unlikely they would fit into the EX exceptions.

This reads like you are saying that whether a trans woman can be excluded from female spaces depends on whether or not they pass
Surely that isn't right?

Gibberty
The material you posted is about excluding men, or put more precisely, about when discrimination is permitted against the protected characteristic of sex. What people are wanting to do on this thread is to discriminate against the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

This is legitimate in certain circumstances. This is the example given in the equality act notes:

A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7/5/3

And on this thread we have a perfect example of the problem: the language is unclear, the intention is unclear, the interpretation is unclear - it's simpler not to engage.

The intention is clear though.

The intention is to make the language and interpretation so unclear that women's spaces are destroyed.

have never said that men should not be challenged but you are trying to exclude women

No one here is trying to exclude women.

Neither of which posts I reported because I want everyone to see what transactivism is. I totally understand why you want to silence people who point it out.

YY.

The intention is to make the language and interpretation so unclear that women's spaces are destroyed.

And yes exactly. The intention is crystal clear.

Neither of which posts I reported because I want everyone to see what transactivism is. I totally understand why you want to silence people who point it out.

Another YY.

The intention is to make the language and interpretation so unclear that women's spaces are destroyed.

Also agree. The "class of humans formerly known as women" will still exist, will still be subject to violence from the "class of human formerly known as men" and, for safety and dignity, will still need their own spaces and services.

Gibberty knows this perfectly well. And is intent on preventing women from having these spaces and services. Bare naked male supremacy - no amount of language obscurantism will hide this.

I have screenshot gibberty's claim to be responsible for a significant chunk of equality law.

If this is true, it is terrible, frightening and a shocking governmental oversight.

Wow. That's making me wonder who Gibberty is in the world of transactivism.

But obvs anyone can be the Pope on the internet.

Gibberty knows this perfectly well. And is intent on preventing women from having these spaces and services. Bare naked male supremacy - no amount of language obscurantism will hide this.

I don't think Gibberty even cares enough about what we think as women to bother to do this.

Yes re: Pope. We may well be talking to a fantasist.

The one, slight encouraging thing is that they come on to Mumsnet with their dismissiveness and flawed arguments. That's proof they themselves are worried, right? They are close to power. They have their ear to the ground. They must feel political minds changing.

FlibGib is starting to sound a bit India Willoughby with the "I am a woman".

The problem is flib gib, "gender" is invisible, especially here.

The intention is to make the language and interpretation so unclear that women's spaces are destroyed.

And yes exactly. The intention is crystal clear.

The intention of the TRAs is crystal clear. I was referring both to the intention of the two Acts, and to TIMs perceived intentions when entering female spaces.

I was referring both to the intention of the two Acts, and to TIMs perceived intentions when entering female spaces.

Good point.

Bare naked male supremacy - no amount of language obscurantism will hide this.

In fact I rather think Gib is enjoying rubbing our noses in it.

In fact I rather think Gib is enjoying rubbing our noses in it.

Yes, and the more Flib is sneery and entitled, the more women are put off and trust eroded.

YY. I won't say the thing about giving sufficient rope as I've seen it construed and reported by TRAs on other sites as a violent wish that specific people would kill themselves.

Say instead that Gib is indeed educating people, just not in quite the way that they intended.