Ministers commit to preserving sex-based exemptions

[EmpressOfSpartacus]

Open access link: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ministers-put-curbs-on-trans-rights-7zx2cbh2j?shareToken=71ea2e364a4682a6395af2056695238d

That sounds more positive. Of course, the devil will be in the detail...

Hmm, well, woman have certainly put the Government on notice that we ain't going to accept men in our spaces without a very big fight. But this case by case thing is a loooong way from a victory.

Keep the fight going and keep peak transing the unwitting general population.

Brilliant news

The comments so far are reassuring - mainly about common sense prevailing.

Congratulations to the #ManFriday team. A very British protest, but highly effective at exposing the ludicrousness of the proposals.

Well done to The Times too for not being afraid to report on this.

Good news in that it signals the government have heard - and thx to Man Friday for their efforts.

But it's not saying women's rights should always trump those identifying as the opposite sex - just that they need not - but still doesn't define a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.. These are weasely words open to interpretation and still leaving the decision with the service provider - whether M&S or a refuge.

advancing the rights of trans people does not have to compromise women’s rights” but doesn't say biological women's needs should always take precedence.

It pledges: “Providers of women-only services [can choose not to] 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.”

Woffle.

Well done to ManFriday men, seriously.

The statement says the current process for gaining a gender recognition certificate “is not working well for the people it is designed for”, with only 4,850 certificates issued since the Gender Recognition Act came into force in 2004. But the statement adds: “That does not necessarily mean we are proposing self-declaration of gender.”

This though really annoys me. In 2004 it was estimated that 5000 people would get a GRC. So it looks to me like the current system is working exactly as intended? Works for those who actually have sex dysphoria, and keeps out those who just follow different stereotypes (and abusive males who would otherwise exploit the fuck out of it)

Also this part

Providers may exclude trans people from facilities of the sex they identify with, provided it is a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim.”

Surely the fact that such spaces are sex segregated in the first place, and the reasons for that..means any space that is sex segregated is 'a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim'?

This comment from The Times article illustrates my point:

Providers of women-only services [can choose not to] 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“....

Prove to whom, how and in what circumstances?
There are no relevant forms of identification that are available or required to carried by those who are TG to identify their status. Requests to prove gender based on appearance and any request to prove the presence, or lack of, genetalia, would be fraught with the danger of both embarrassment and subsequent lawsuits.

I'm sorry for the dampener but it looks like a PR exercise to me

I'm not sure this piece does more than reiterate the government response to the petition but it's good to have it covered in a mainstream paper.

The 'case by case' exemption part should be the other way round. The 'Chesterton fence' principle should surely be applied - sex- based exclusions which exist should remain except for any where it can be shown that changing to 'gender'-based (or open to all regardless of sex or gender) is a 'proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim'.

Stonewall indulging in its usual false slur that 'the current debate questions [trans people's ] very right to exist'. It doesn't. Trans people need support, appropriate medical/counselling help etc, and rights. But not at the expense of women's rights.

There aren't many comments there yet. The comment section is a good place to make your point.

''It pledges: “Providers of women-only services [can choose not to] 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.”''

This isn't good enough. It leaves frontline staff and trans people in, at best, an awkward social situation; and at worst, open to abuse.
Existing women only spaces and services have already demonstrated they have a legitimate aim.

Trans people need to set up their own spaces and services.

Positive news but yes, I do wonder about the GRC "not working well for those for whom it was designed'

I agree with PersonWithAVulva

"Works for those who actually have sex dysphoria, and keeps out those who just follow different stereotypes (and abusive males who would otherwise exploit the fuck out of it"

This is why we are where we are, discussing it: because other people wish to exploit it

This isn't a victory yet, but it is a sign that consciousness raising efforts are starting to pay off and politicians are noticing that attempts to railroad women into accepting the changes asked for by TRAs will not go unopposed.

Sex-based exemptions aren't worth the paper they are written on if it's possible to legally change sex.

I have seen many people say "transwomen are women" and simultaneously be quite happy with sex segregation, because transwomen (as biological women, obviously) are , by their definition included in all women's spaces.

The specific exemptions are only of any use if (1) they are possible to implement and (2) they can exclude people with a GRC (in other words treat them as their natal sex).

Well done, ManFriday!

I see this as the next step on the ladder, not that the battle has been won by any means. This is certainly very favourable in our direction, in the way it is written at least, and shows this issue is being taken seriously. The word is getting out there, which is huge considering we were so concerned about how this was all being looked at behind closed doors. That's thanks mainly to the fabulous Man Friday.

I do agree that the explanations are waffley and actually meaningless when you seriously study them. I agree with Errol - sex segregation should be the default, any exemptions need careful consideration and justification.

Brilliant that they are paying attention (well done ManFriday chaps!) but not so brilliant that it’s still completely woolly and open. Perhaps they will refine it later.

I think that we can tentatively say they have heard us. Whether they will listen is another matter.

This is just PR but they are being forced ro do the PR because ManFriday & others are getting the issue out there, making it a discussion.
Well done chaps - keep going!

Exactly. I'm concerned that this is a PR exercise to try to reassure women when they know the exemptions are difficult to use. I'm also concerned that it says they are launching the consultation to coincide with Pride, which to me says that they are pushing it forward on the same platform as gay marriage and being woke and going after the youth vote.

I think my main point is not to be swayed, and keep going. And if the governments actions look to be cynical we need to keep challenging them. Especially on how providers can balance women's rights with transgender ones.

I do agree however that if it weren't for Man Friday and Woman's Place and We Need to Talk etc there would be no dialogue at all, so well done!