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

As soon as Self ID is piggybacked in on the back of this empty promise, the EA will be ferociously targeted.

This isn't us winning. This is a change in PR strategy.

PermissionToSpeakSir
Mmmm they will launch the consultation to co-incide with Pride (not IWD eh?) - what a great day to create a bias in your responses govt!
Which Pride is that? — there are lots of them, all over the country indifferent days.
More to the point, is that they have delayed launching it until Parliament is in recess, and the silly season is upon us, when the papers will have plenty of space available for their usual anti-trans propaganda.

MillyTheKid
So you want people like Debbie Hayton kept out too?
What makes you think Debbie has a GRC?
The overwhelming majority of TSs don't.

PeakPants
Well, apart from that is what the government has previously said they would do in terms of amending the Act.
Link to draft Bill, please?

The comments show people support us though and I suspect future law changes won't be pushed through with no media debate.

PersonWithAVulva
Ah yes, never can bring yourself to say 'pro women'..it has to be anti-trans, which is not even true.
I have seen nothing in any of these anti-trans threads that is "pro women": it is 100% unadulterated pure anti trans. Show me anything — literally anything — in a trans related thread that will do anything to make women's lives better?
If you really wanted to make life better for millions of ordinary women, you would do it by not stirring up false fears about something that is nothing whatsoever to do with them.

LangCleg
I thought you got banned, Damned?
Not yet, despite your efforts to curtail my freedom of speech. But when it happens, I will follow the example set by Germaine Greer, Miranda Yardley and loads of others, and go screaming to all the mainstream media about how I got no-platformed, gagged and banned for expressing my opinion.

Damned that report compiled by a government minister has been shared so many times that I can’t be arsed to share it again. Not all government intentions are by way of draft legislation.

There is no way this is not the work of TRA. As in look over there while this nice consultation gets under way.

We WANT the EA amended. We want sex specific spaces to be a right, not 'permissible'.

PersonWithAVulva
How is it too difficult? And its means tested also.
It's not difficult if you live in the same place for several years and keep good records. I do, and my application went through with no problems.
But the Gender Recognition Panel has a reputation for being very picky about the evidence it requires, and its instructions are far from explicit — they appear to be clear enough, but there are a number of hidden hoops that you don't see until an application has been rejected.
For someone who has moved several times, or has not kept every utility bill and bank statement since their GRS, it can be more difficult — especially as they won't always accept print-outs of electronic invoices.
There are countless hurdles to trip people. And every time an application is rejected it costs another £140 to re-submit.

Yes, the £140 is means tested... but the ancillary costs — such as solicitors fees, and fees for getting a copy of a decree absolute are not.

I use sex dysphoria, as transsexual people are dysphoric about their sexed body. Not their 'gender' which is nothing but a bunch of stereotypes.
The term is gender dysphoria — whether you or I agree with it or not! I see your concern about "gender" but I think that is because you are reading it as gender role (which is, as you say, "a bunch of stereotypes") rather than gender identity (which is an internal sense of "self" )

It's an interesting insight into how the other side thinks though, this insistence that we ought to be willing to let say Debbie into spaces in which we'll be naked. Like that's a reward for political support, or ought to be.

Indeed. Debbie is helping women campaign for our single-sex spaces to be retained.

That people think we should show our gratitude for that by saying Debbie should be able to access all women-only spaces is a bit bizarre.

This is reporting of the actual government response to the petition:

The government statement came in response to a petition launched by Amy Desir of Man Friday, a feminist group that seeks to ridicule the notion that people should be allowed to self-identify with a particular gender.

And I agree with others, the timing of the reporting is interesting. The government response was published nearly 3 weeks ago and is entirely different in tone from Mordaunt's comments on Wednesday.

That people think we should show our gratitude for that by saying Debbie should be able to access all women-only spaces is a bit bizarre.

Please quote where anyone suggests that. Asking the question about whether the likes of Debbie should be excluded (I'm assuming she uses female toilets) is not suggesting some kind of reward, it's merely finding out whether the poster believes that all trans people should be excluded or whether she believes post-ops like Debbie should have access.

PeakPants
Damned that report compiled by a government minister has been shared so many times that I can’t be arsed to share it again. Not all government intentions are by way of draft legislation.
Please show me anything that committed the government to "Self ID". I have seen nothing more detailed than this (12 months ago, and still no nearer to seeing the light of day):-
Proposals will include:
Removing the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria before being able to apply for gender recognition. The current need to be assessed and diagnosed by clinicians is seen as an intrusive requirement by the trans community; and
Proposing options for reducing the length and intrusiveness of the gender recognition system."
Removing the need for a formal diagnosis of one very specific condition, and "proposing options" do not add up to "Self ID"!

The words don’t help. The policy should be that single sex services and spaces should not have to employ or admit biological boys and men “self identifying” as girls or women. If organisations decide to do so, this should be made clear to current and potential service users.

Wanting to retain single sex services and spaces is not “anti trans”. Good policy considers people’s interests, which often don’t align, and evidence - for example about risks of crime. In this case IMO any decent policy analysis should find that the best policy is, for certain single sex services, to exclude transpeople.

Pratchet
We WANT the EA amended. We want sex specific spaces to be a right, not 'permissible'.
Well at least that's honest. You are admitting that you want existing rights removed from trans people — that you want trans people denied access to public loos, denied the opportunity to try on clothes before they buy. And you want to deny the victims of rape or domestic violence access to support services if they don't fit your criteria (rather than those of the people on the spot who actually provide the service)

Some transpeople (identifying as women) denied access to some SINGLE SEX services.

Unfortunately many organisations providing services are practicing bad policymaking, to the detriment of girls and women.

post-ops like Debbie should have access.

No.

Wanting to retain single sex services and spaces is not “anti trans

Do you think it is anti-trans Damned?
Do you have any problem with the single sex exemptions in the EqA?

Well at least that's honest. You are admitting that you want existing rights removed from trans people — that you want trans people denied access to public loos, denied the opportunity to try on clothes before they buy. And you want to deny the victims of rape or domestic violence access to support services if they don't fit your criteria (rather than those of the people on the spot who actually provide the service)

No other group makes demands for have something that wasn't rightfully theres in the first place.

Our safe space is needed for privacy, dignity and safety. It may be partly needed by you for that reason too. But it's also because your need for your identity to be validated trumps everyone else else's concerns.

Any other group in history has quite rightly campaigned to be accepted in spaces and in law that were already theirs in the first place.

This must be the only group that says, no, our own space is not good enough. We need your space. It's not enough to be accepted as trans. We have to rewrite and refine EVERYTHING to suit your agenda.

Tough.

Women have FOUGHT for their right to a safe space.

This is OUR space. Too right the default position is on sex segregation and then very careful consideration and justification for any exemptions and NOT the other way round.

you are admitting that you want existing rights removed from trans people — that you want trans people denied access to public loos, denied the opportunity to try on clothes before they buy

Pls stop lying and putting words in my mouth

Trans people can use public toilets - why not?

Trans people can use shop changing rooms, why not?

I must just as well say you want women's existing rights to use public toilets and changing rooms removed. You certainly want to destroy their right to sex specific spaces. At least you can be honest about that.

And also what kettle said.