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

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.

Yes good point

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

I'm more hopeful than that.

I agree that it's just a positive spin (in GC terms) on the government petition response. However, it's notable that the Times is now feeling able to frame this as a return to common sense by government. The whole tone is Well, duh, obviously, which is a real improvement.

The assumption behind the article is that everyone already knows extremist transactivist demands are a very bad idea; the Times no longer feels the need to actually make the case to its readers that they're a very bad idea.

This, I'd say, is progress.

And thanks mostly to all the wonderful women who have campaigned at great personal risk. Thank you, women!

I agree that we mustn't give up. This is waffle - we need to keep on bringing the issues up, keep on meeting. Please comment under the article if you can

Progress, I think. And yes, the Times article referenced the great work done so far.

But much to be done.

Do we know who Penny Mordaunt is consulting with in the July consultation?

Popchyk
If Mordaunt follows the model of the clueless Maria Miller, not a woman's voice will be heard!
Hopefully their previous bias has now been recognised and this time those representing the voices of women, children, prisoners etc will not only be allowed to submit responses but will be invited to some of the cosy chats that they have.

One of the cases mentioned by The Times is an example of the difficulty of incompatible rights

metro.co.uk/2018/01/14/woman-who-feared-men-accused-of-transphobia-after-objecting-to-hospital-room-with-trans-woman-7227597/

“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.”

If it's on a case by case basis then presumably that means there will be no blanket ban? I can't actually see businesses going to the trouble to check every individual on an individual basis heading into the toilets or changing rooms. It probably leaves them the scope to do something if someone complains or if something looks iffy but it doesn't look as if that generally stops any trans person from just walking into whatever facility they choose.

It merely restates the current status quo, where existing exemptions are not being used. This is not good enough. The guidance and exemptions need strengthening so service providers have confidence in applying them & discretionary decisions are not dumped on frontline staff, often junior and on minimum wage.

I should be happy with this but there is something I can't put my finger on. May be it is because I cannot see whether Penny Mordaunt is running with the foxes or hunting with the hounds.

I do not think that a case-by-case basis is satisfactory.

What the Government needs to provide sooner rather than later is a sensible definition of who is covered by the term transgender. Not the Stonewall free-for-all version and definitely one that excludes men whose hobby is autogynephilia.

I should be happy with this but there is something I can't put my finger on. May be it is because I cannot see whether Penny Mordaunt is running with the foxes or hunting with the hounds.

Isn't she just a typical politician trying to come up with a fudge that probably doesn't leave either side happy?

Anyone who does try to apply an exemption at the moment is getting pilloried on social media. That makes me think that it needs to swing the other way. Normally single-sex services / facilities should need to make a case for including biological males if they think it's called for.

I'm cynical. After watching Mordaunt's performance at Committee I don't think she has a clue. Anyone who pleads for tolerance immediately before using the word bigot is suspect. We need to keep up the pressure. There will be no space in the coming consultation to comment on single sex spaces. We have to accept nothing less than new guidance to organisations. It's the new guidance that has been given that's changed the balance of rights.

Who else do Stonewall want women and children to remove safeguards for?

Gay men, old men, ,weak men, disabled men? They get bullied too.

Empress

Yes. That's the way round it should be

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.

I agree Errol, but I also think it's got a bit of "added significance" in the context of Mordaunt's performance midweek - www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3283616-Penny-Mordaunt-has-made-her-position-at-Women-Equalities-Committee

Seems to me the Sunday Times is doing it's best to put Mordaunt on the spot by pointing out that she came across very differently when responding to the petition only a short while before that.

Anyone who does try to apply an exemption at the moment is getting pilloried on social media. That makes me think that it needs to swing the other way. Normally single-sex services / facilities should need to make a case for including biological males if they think it's called for.

This. It's absurd that we're the ones who would have to go cap in hand to justify our need for single sex provision when sexual discrimination is almost always against us, sexual assaults are almost always committed on us.

The law was written when government only expected a few thousand people to transition, but we're looking at hundreds of thousands of people and not all will have GID, most will retain the genitals they were born with and a good number consider themselves fluid and will flit between masculine and feminine.

Agreed, the default should be for single sex to mean exactly what it says on the tin. If trans people would like exemptions in certain specific circumstances then they can then campaign for them.

Shows what an excellent campaign ManFriday have run, and that all the hard work done by WPUK etc is having an effect. There's a long way to go.

The danger is that the general public will take this statement at face value. Exceptions are safe,no change to EQ Act. This is why a campaign is so important.

There is abundant evidence about the need for safeguarding and single sex spaces to protect women and children from sexual predation and assault. In my view, the case for objective justification for areas where women and children will be vulnerable and privacy is needed (eg changing rooms, overnight shared accomdation, toilets, hospital wards) has already been made & should be off the table for case by case consideration. I think we could equally make a case for contact sports (increased injury risk to women).

Kudos to you Amy Desir

"The law was written when government only expected a few thousand people to transition, but we're looking at hundreds of thousands of people"

You are making a great argument that, because more people are now needing protection, that the laws protecting trans people should be strengthened and extended.

It is evident that women organising have had an impact and that the violent and intimidatory tactics of the T activists have been an own goal. However, the fact that MPs are too frightened to speak out openly about this, means that we have to continue to ensure that the general public understand the risks that self ID poses to the safety of women and children.

I think we could equally make a case for contact sports (increased injury risk to women).

I don't think we should have to make that case. It should be on those who think 100kg male bodied people with a large muscle mass won't injure or disadvantage 70kg female people with significantly less muscle mass.

In a major victory, ministers have vowed not to change a law nobody was proposing changing...
...and to consult on a possible future change to a law that antitrans activists have spent the past few months claiming that already know all the details of!
Wow.
You can tell Parliament is in recess, can't you — the quality of "news" reporting has gone even further downhill!