Penny Mordaunt has made her position at Women & Equalities Committee

[SwearyG]

She said what trans people face is misperception.
She said that this is like the fight for gay rights in the 80s.
She said we are frightened and have no experience of trans people.
She said that the videos and lectures going around are bigotry
She said that they need to show solidarity, but that won’t be set out in anything because questions have to be asked neutrally.

She’s a fucking woman and she said that we’re (and I am paraphrasing) misinformed bigots for caring about the rights of women and children.

I am so right now.

Identifying into a protected characteristic is problematic - does that happen elsewhere?

Sexual orientation to a degree as well I suppose. You can say you're bi even if you've only ever displayed hetero tendencies.

Ffs! Has she not seen #labourlosingwomen ? This would have been an excellent opportunity for her to pretend that her party gives a shit about them.

Identifying into a protected characteristic is problematic - does that happen elsewhere?

Thinking about it though, nobody is "identifying into" a protected characteristic; we all have the protected characteristic of sex, just like we all have the protected characteristic of sexual orientation; we all have one.

The protected characteristics are just the things for which one cannot be discriminated against. So you can't discriminate against me for my sex, regardless of whether it's male or female, or for my sexual orientation - be it gay, lesbian, bi or straight.

She's so ignorant of the issues. The last section all I kept thinking is - that's you! 'I think people are ignorant about what the trans community is' Nah mate we know - you obviously haven't understood your Stonewall briefings.

Is there any tangible benefit for identifying into any of the other protected characteristics?

I mean, gay rights aren’t much use if you aren’t gay (although I suppose some of the tumblrqueer crowd might enjoy the rainbow glow?)

Identifying as disabled might get you some disability benefits, but lordy knows actual disabled people aren’t getting what they should at the present time (and doctors are the gatekeepers). Socially identifying as disabled might get you some sympathy points?

Freedom to practice religion - again, not much use if you aren’t actually religious? The definitions for what constitutes religion in the UK are quite tight, I believe (seem to remember some legal hoo-ha over Scientology?)

Race, well, again, I suppose there are some possible cool points to be gained but attempts towards this are now called out as appropriation?
In the US there are college scholarships for African American students and people of Native American heritage - I believe Elizabeth Warren has been asked to prove her Native American heritage due to this, but she was asked only years later and it was a political point scoring exercise (from a man who is yet to provide his tax returns) so I don’t think it went anywhere.

(These aren’t properly formed thoughts yet. Obviously it’s incredibly problematic to self ID into other people’s identities, if not outright fraudulent).

Rereading the thread I think a few people here maybe aren't quite sure what a "protected characteristic" is or quite what that means.

@Rat

Sex is different protected characteristic as you very well know. Can we self-ID into race now? If not - why not?

Allowing anybody who wishes to legally change their sex is very very significant. It's huge. We're basically saying - biological sex doesn't exist. I wonder which sex get's erased?

Is there any tangible benefit for identifying into any of the other protected characteristics?

This is what I mean; the protected characteristics aren't about what you've gone on to write about in your post. They're a list of the characteristics that you are not allowed to discriminate against someone for.

So I might be hiring for a job. I can decide not to hire you because of your education level. I can decide not to hire you because of your personality and the fact that I don't think you'll fit into the team. But I cannot not hire you because you're straight and I prefer my team to be gay (for whatever reason). That is unlawful discrimination against you on the basis of a protected characteristic.

Make sense?

transphobes and gender-critters are forever telling trans allies they are uninformed about trans people.

Especially the MOST informed trans allies..... twas ever thus.

It's almost as though theres a belief that denigrating and misrepresenting trans people means you know the first thing of what you are talking about, to clarify, this is not the case.

But make sure you all write lots of nasty letters and try to silence or remove Penny, the more you do it, the more people see you.

Sex is different protected characteristic as you very well know.

I very well know that it is not. Lat time this came up the very knowledgeable AllyMcBeagle was even on hand to say that in the context of the EA it is not.

There are special permissions afforded to positive action on the grounds of sex, but that is not the same thing. And even then, if you wanted to exclude a "female" from that who had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, you and I both know that you could do that; so long as it was a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

Rat, that only makes sense if there is nothing at all that is ONLY open to those with the protected characteristic.

And that’s what we’re trying to avoid.

People do identify into religion for a different/better choice of school it is limited by the religions concerned and does not go down well. If you decide to join a strict religious group and stop working on a particular day, you do not automatically get time off for worship - that can take a lot of negotiation and you may still have to move job.

I feel I should translate my last post:

All the EA protected characteristics are equal under the EA. There is no hierarchy.

In law you are allowed to have things like all-women shortlists; this is a special thing in law in relation to discrimination apparently.

If you want to exclude trans women from something exclusively for natal women you are allowed to so long as it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim. You can do this even though you share the same legal sex, because you are different in terms of your gender reassignment (also a protected characteristic).

Sorry Betty I don't understand... brain addled! I think you mean like if you wanted something only for natal females, in which case my point about natal females and transgender females not sharing the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" applies.

Changing the sex on your birth certificate is not significant? Except for.
*Recording of accurate statistics
*Receiving proper medical treatment
*Deciding what prison you should be placed in
*Awarding scholarships and places on schemes addressing structural female inequality
*Deciding who can provide intimate care
*Accessing vulnerable women abused by men
*Sport

‘Solidarity’ from what and against what though.
Against Male violence- Fine? Against the thoughtcrime of Feminists and the reality based community-not Fine.

Who or what is the threat to the trans community she is seeing?

Recording of accurate statistics
You can record equality data for statistics; why would you not be able to?
Receiving proper medical treatment
If your medical notes are in front of a doctor such that they can see you sex, they can also see your other medical details (such as your gender reassignment); can't they?
Deciding what prison you should be placed in
Currently they'll house you in line with your self-identified gender, regardless of what your birth certificate says. Unless you pose a risk to others, then they'll house you in a secure unit. These are all (as far as I know) in male prisons.
Awarding scholarships and places on schemes addressing structural female inequality
I can only think of AWS... these are also currently on the basis of self-identification. If anyone wants to change that they need only show it to be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.
Deciding who can provide intimate care
Anyone qualified can provide intimate care. Any potential patient can refuse any qualified professional
Accessing vulnerable women abused by men
Again, currently done on the basis of self-ID. Exclusion is quite possible under the EA should those who run shelters and such deem it beneficial
Sport
Sports can exclude transgender people entirely if they see fit; the truth is that almost every single one believes that is not the measure necessary to ensure safe and fair competition. If they did, they would have the power to do it under the law.

Hope that helps.

Awarding scholarships and places on schemes addressing structural female inequality
I can only think of AWS... these are also currently on the basis of self-identification. If anyone wants to change that they need only show it to be a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

No they should not be based on self-id - this is not legal

OK, so the slightly confused posting seems to be based on protection v exemption.

I don’t think there should be a hierarchy of the characteristics but I also don’t think you should be able to move categories and benefit from the exemptions in place for that category.

Some of the characteristics are less materially evident than others so if you want to benefit from a special exemption for those categories it’s not unreasonable to expect proof to be necessary (ie, if you want to use a religious school, you should expect to provide proof that you are of that religion via verification from a faith leader etc).

No they should not be based on self-id - this is not legal

I didn't decide it, but it's a statement of truth that they are currently based on self-ID.

It's going through court apparently.

There's nothing to stop them excluding trans women from these on the basis of their gender reassignment if that is what's decided. Being able to obtain a GRC and change one's legal sex doesn't stop these being for natal females only, if it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.

OK, so the slightly confused posting seems to be based on protection v exemption.

Ah, gotcha, that explains it.

Some of the characteristics are less materially evident than others so if you want to benefit from a special exemption for those categories it’s not unreasonable to expect proof to be necessary

Isn't the only real exemption relating to sex that we're talking about here All Women Shortlists? And that's going through court at the moment, isn't it?

"Rereading the thread I think a few people here maybe aren't quite sure what a "protected characteristic" is or quite what that means."

"identyifing" is only relevant to sex. Males are explicitly protected if they "identify" as female. The word "identify" is NOT used for religion, race or disability. "identify" is only applied to gender identity.

Asserting here that you can "identify" into other characteristics is yet more obfuscation and waffle that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and is intended to confuse people here.

Please ignore this red herring diversion.

There is an upcoming court case re: prisons too.

The thing is, we don’t really know what’s on the table and what isn’t, do we?

We’re told we are being paranoid and that self ID won’t affect exemptions stated on the 2010 act, but no impact assessments are being done and we’re seeing the creep-creep-creep of the erosion of those exemptions, in practice, if not in law.

Asserting here that you can "identify" into other characteristics is yet more obfuscation and waffle that has absolutely no relevance whatsoever and is intended to confuse people here.

I don't really know what you're saying about "identify", so if anyone's confused right now it's me.

"identyifing" is only relevant to sex. Males are explicitly protected if they "identify" as female.

Males are protected from sex-based discrimination regardless of how they identify. So are females. Everyone is protected from discrimination on the basis of their sex

Unless you're getting at what Betty is saying, which is about exemptions not protections? Because otherwise I think this is another case of not really getting the notion of "protected" characteristics.

We’re told we are being paranoid and that self ID won’t affect exemptions stated on the 2010 act, but no impact assessments are being done and we’re seeing the creep-creep-creep of the erosion of those exemptions, in practice, if not in law.

Well they have stated they won't be changing the exemptions; that has been stated categorically (can't be arsed to find it now but I'm sure it's Googleable or searchable on here).

I know what you mean about "creep-creep-creep" though; I suppose that's to do with the interpretation of "proportionate means to a legitimate aim", and that what people think it legitimate may be changing, along with what people think is proportionate.

And actually I think those are the kind of things it's really worthwhile us as feminists defending against; so all the actual campaigns (whether I agree with them or not) about things like Girl Guides or whatever, I think they're a very valid way to approach any perceived erosion of women's rights.

Transgender groups and representatives are allowed to campaign for what they want though, aren't they? Just like we are. Doesn't mean they're going to get it.