Supporting men who break stereotypes.

[lurker33]

I've said this on another thread, but I'd like to explore it a bit further...

In my opinion the only thing that differentiates boys from girls are their primary and secondary sexual characteristics. Girls can do anything boys can do, and boys can do anything girls can do, barring those things that are required to procreate.

The only thing holding people back are societal expectations. We need to be challenging these, not reinforcing them with this gender identity nonsense.

A man wearing a dress and wearing makeup however should be applauded for being courageous and breaking stereotypes.

If a man dresses and acts 'like a woman' and calls himself 'a woman' then he is a parody of a woman (in the ironic sense) because the only way he can do this is to perform deeply flawed stereotypes.

Men in dresses and make up insisting on being recognised as women is therefore exactly the same as blackface and is deeply insulting to women.

Why is it ok to insult women with the lie that men are woman, but not ok to tell the truth and say men can never become women?

As a result I cannot support the GRC or self ID. These are red herrings and should be repealed and rejected.

PeakPants nobody was suggesting on the other thread the GRA should be repealed altogether.

There is respectful debate and there is completely dismissing the entire concept of being trans.

Anyone who believes this Government won't change their mind is mad. May changes her mind more often than she changes her knickers.

Daim: it's racist to appropriate apartheid. This is what you are trying to do. The appropriate analogy is a rich man with nine water fountains taking a drink from the water fountain shared by none poor men.

By nine poor men.

Yeah but the point is that the EA doesn’t go far enough so it’s not enough to just say ‘don’t worry, the EA is not under threat’. It needs reforming too. For instance Women’s Aid are now consulting with a view to letting trans women work in refuges without even a GRC and Welsh Women’s Aid have said that anyone who identifies as needing Women’s services will be covered. In prisons, some trans women without a GRC are already housed in the female estate. So actually it’s not providing that much protection really because it’s already the case that female domestic violence victims in Wales are not getting a female-only service, which you yourself have admitted they need.

The exemptions need to be mandatory rather than voluntary, basically, because what's happening is that organizations are coming under pressure from trans activists to choose not to apply the exemptions in exactly the scenarios where they most need to be applied.

The suggestions that transgender organisations have 'power' to change is therefore incorrect

This is so completely wrong that I'm surprised you have the gall to write it down. The implementation of the Equality Act is already being subverted far from its original intentions. There are numerous examples, of course, along the lines of being allowed on their word to enter Hampstead Pond female bathing area. In addition to this chipping away of the sex protection actually happening the government has explicitly said it will go further (I refer you to my previous post). In addition to this, transactivists have andxare proud of replaving the protected characteristic of sex with 'gender' across a swathe of local government bodies, institutions, company mission statements and unions.

The lie that the Equality Act 2010
will protect women and girls is a temporary piece of PR to get self ID through.

The exemptions need to be mandatory rather than voluntary

Interesting. Haven't heard this suggested before.

If we're talking about a women's only group, like a book club then surely it should be down to that group to make the decision, but in the case of sensitive job roles such as rape crisis counsellor I would vote for this to be mandatory.

If Self ID is passed, the overt attack on the Equality Act will begin the next day. The covert attack has been taking place for years. (Sarah Brown changed 'sex' to 'gender' in h** local authority seven years ago 'quite deliberately'.)

Pratchet I know you believe this but it seems incredibly pessimistic to assume the Government is secretly plotting with the transgender activists to erode women's rights when they have explicitly stated they are not. TBF though I don't trust the Tories as far as I could throw them so you could be onto something.

That was what I was arguing on the other thread! You’ve never seen it suggested? A book club would never fall under the exemptions anyway because it would not be possible to show it was necessary or proportionate to exclude trans women. Rape crisis and refuges do fall under the exemptions but it is voluntary as to whether they are applied- the exemptions simply give service providers a defence to an accusation of discrimination. As I said in my last post the biggest DV service provider is moving towards allowing not only trans service users but trans refuge staff. So they are choosing not to apply the exemptions. You yourself accept that these services need to be single sex. The EA clearly offers insufficient protection.

'The exemptions need to be mandatory rather than voluntary'

Completely agree. This is the only way to ensure that the Act which was intended to keep women and girls safe in sex segregated areas is enforced.

If Self ID is passed, the overt attack on the Equality Act will begin the next day. The covert attack has been taking place for years. (Sarah Brown changed 'sex' to 'gender' in h* local authority seven years ago 'quite deliberately'.)

The coordinated and organised imposition of policy by stealth is exactly how totalitarianism takes root - relying on people's acquiescence in the face of force and thuggery

I was going to say, I am definitely not the first person to suggest this.

"Daim: it's racist to appropriate apartheid. This is what you are trying to do. The appropriate analogy is a rich man with nine water fountains taking a drink from the water fountain shared by none poor men."

Why is it racist? In both cases the proponents want to segregate a group based on biology?

The exemptions need to be mandatory rather than voluntary, basically, because what's happening is that organizations are coming under pressure from trans activists to choose not to apply the exemptions in exactly the scenarios where they most need to be applied.

The willful blindness is glaringly obvious

Why is it racist? In both cases the proponents want to segregate a group based on biology?'

There is no biological difference between a black woman and a white woman.

there is no chromosomal difference between black and white women but obviously there is a biological difference in terms of their skin colour and bodily appearance. The point is it is inherent and natural and cannot be changed. If I don’t like my skin colour there is nothing I can do to change it. If I don’t like my sex, I can’t change it either.

Sorry @PeakPants I must have missed that bit on the other thread. If there's a petition going to make the EA exceptions mandatory pass me the pen and I'll happily sign.

Legal bods might know the answer to this - could a service user in theory ask that an organization invoke the exemptions on their behalf, and if so what would the organization's responsibilities be legally speaking?

The exemptions need to be mandatory rather than voluntary, basically, because what's happening is that organizations are coming under pressure from trans activists to choose not to apply the exemptions in exactly the scenarios where they most need to be applied.

YY. At the very least, the "proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim" business needs to be reversed. The onus is on the wrong group.

Women should not have to justify why we should have female only spaces. They have already changed the law by getting the GRA passed in the first place, and including biological males in the category of women. We now have to justify why we don’t want them in our spaces because of this, which is ridiculous.

Activists are already making institutions, companies etc, include them in female only spaces, awards, sports etc, we all have seen evidence of this. This is because they are powerful, if they weren’t then they wouldn’t get what they want when they demand it, without a thought being spared of the impact of that on women and girls. It doesn’t matter one iota what politicians claim the law says or doesn’t say, when in practice women’s rights are being rode roughshod over, which is happening because the GRA and the protected characteristic of gender reassignment was enshrined into law.

As Pratchet says they are also setting out to change the words and meaning of words in law, which is changing the law. The GRA was the catalyst for this and needs to go and gender reassignment needs to be removed as protected category. Instead the law should state that it wrong to discriminate against anyone who does not follow stereotypes in things like housing, employment etc, but it should also state that they should never be treated as if they are actually part of another category of people, which they can never realistically be. Females should be entitled to female only spaces, without having to justify it. This is what I think we need to fight for.

Kittens I am not 100% sure but I believe the answer is no, they can’t. The exemptions are addressed to service providers and don’t give a right to service users. What the service user could argue is that there has been discrimination on the grounds of the protected characteristic of sex by failing to provide an adequate service. However, that may be difficult to establish. I am not aware of any case law on this area but I don’t specialise in employment/discrimination law.

I do believe the Labour AWS test case is going to be based on this argument but I don’t have enough detail about it to say for sure.

It's so racist that if you do it again after I have explained it to you, I will report you.

Women have a justified fear of sharing intimate spaces with male-bodies people due to the sexual and violent crime propensity of male-bodied people and the fact that male biology renders them vastly more physically powerful than women.

White people have no justification for a fear of sharing intimate spaces with people of colour.

I do hope that is clear enough because this racist appropriation has gone far enough.

Females should be entitled to female only spaces, without having to justify it. This is what I think we need to fight for

Thanks Artemis - this is simple and clear. Everyone should be able to get this.