Transgender people can be turned away from female only spaces government says

[mammyoftwo]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5880533/amp/Women-allowed-bar-transgender-people-female-changing-rooms-toilets-ministers.html?ico=amp_mostReadNews

Apologies for the source, it's from the daily fail. However, if true it's definitely a victory worth celebrating!!

Yeps. Seen that

Happens, it took me three reads then to realise you meant assault by "battery" and weren't referring to Leon and his need of a charger (sob, who never came back...)

Snappity is trying their damnedest to derail this thread. Please don't let them.

No. But if you are putting aside legal sex based on birth certificates and relying on some biological criteria, those criteria apply to all women equally - and must do so if they are criteria. So if, for example, the criterion which was objectively justified "cannot be masculine looking" then that is the criterion and all masculine-looking women would need to be excluded equally.

I'm glad mainstream media is picking this up.

Say again ?

How do we do this?

Crowdfunding legal challenges.

We really do need something similar to the Centre for Women's Justice, which takes legal cases about VAWG. The same thing, but for equalities failures on the protected characteristic of sex.

How we go about organising this kind of strategic litigation, I don't know.

Yeps ballsballs it’s great they are

The snowball effect I hope

thing is you get stuff like GG repeating what they have been told

"trans girls are girls so there is no need for any specific safeguarding"

they will have taken the same to apply to anything allowed by EA as sex has been changed to gender in so many places + general belief that anyone should be accepted as the sex they say they are.

Thing is that they dont' seem to understand that by allowing in male children (transgirls) but keeping out some female children (transboys and gender fluid) they are no longer a single SEX organisation and so there is no law that allows them to operate in that fashion. Same with "women only" shortlists - that was a SEX based allowance, as soon as they allow males in (no GRC) they invalidate the lists existence in the first place, there is no reason not to allow men. It also could be seen as discriminaiton against transmen - trans being a protected characteristic and what short lists can they access? They are far less visible in public life than transwomen.

I think crowdfunding will be a way we can do this. We need to make sure sex based exemptions remain just that. I'm sure there will be Barristers who are as keen as we are to get this clarified who would help. It's just finding them.

SardinesAreYum Believe me they understand. They fully understand. They just don't like it.

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/06/is-transgender-ideology-making-the-uks-mental-health-crisis-worse/

How we go about organising this kind of strategic litigation, I don't know.

Me neither, but I’ll donate when someone does.

Surely this would be a fairly easy win for a firm?

SardinesAreYum - they don't need to understand from the get go. That is the whole point of impact assessments - they reveal the holes in what are possibly well-meaning policies. They don't understand because they have not carried out impact assessments. And if they did, it wouldn't matter how well they understand - it would be there in black and white: this policy is bad for WAG and therefore has implications for equality duties with regard to the protected characteristic of sex. The problem isn't the lack of understanding: the problem is not taking the lawful steps to get that understanding. That is why they are open to legal challenge.

😂

I think that might get you a strike, juzza

They will also screenshot it.

I hope their goading is taken into account..

There has been a neutralising of intentions somewhat, from what was gathered in this initial inquiry.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmwomeq/390/390.pdf
House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee
Transgender Equality
First Report of Session 2015–16

This has probably been posted before but there were lots of recommendations to remove EA2010 exemptions, all documented here and all recommended by trans people, and in parallel with the GRA update.

The report also recommended changing the EA2010 to say Gender Identity thereby including cross dressing and gender fluid people

Mermaids was the source of this section:
106. Another issue raised with us was the current inability of the EHRC to pursue a complaint by a person aged under 18 without their parents’ consent (see Chapter Six).112
107. The inclusion of “gender reassignment” as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010 was a huge step forward and has clearly improved the position of trans people. However, it is clear to us that the use of the terms “gender reassignment” and “transsexual” in the Act is outdated and misleading; and may not cover wider members of the trans community.
108. The protected characteristic in respect of trans people under the Equality Act should be amended to that of “gender identity”. This would improve the law by bringing the
language in the Act up to date, making it compliant with Council of Europe Resolution 2048; and make it significantly clearer that protection is afforded to anyone who might experience discrimination because of their gender identity.
109. The protections afforded by the Equality Act 2010 are intended to be available to all, including children and adolescents. The Equality and Human Rights Commission must be able to investigate complaints of discrimination raised by children and adolescents
without the requirement to have their parents’ consent

In response to this Maria Miller went ahead to try to change the EA2010 and introduced a private member’s bill in the last parliament with the aim of pushing through the recommendation to change the protected characteristic to Gender Identity despite lack of formal government support. It never got past the first reading because Theresa May called a snap election for June 2017.

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2016-12-01/debates/38CFE29B-D261-45DF-9C31-0546E3CBC3B8/PointsOfOrder

So all this BS about there being nothing to see is BS. They seem to be pretending none of this was captured by the inquiry and changes to the EA2010 were not the sole purpose of Maria Millers Private Member's Bill.

It seems from the meeting last week on the EA that changes are not going to happen quickly now.

Thing is that they dont' seem to understand that by allowing in male children (transgirls) but keeping out some female children (transboys and gender fluid) they are no longer a single SEX organisation and so there is no law that allows them to operate in that fashion.

That's a really excellent point but it is also an explanation as to why teenagers need to be able to get GRCs.

I haven't seen that point made about all-women political shortlists before. It is interesting and you might technically be right but all women shortlists are contentious anyway and I don't think feminism would be well-served by a challenge - especially as it might require a man to challenge his exclusion.

That's a very useful summary, Picasso.

I'm another who'd be up for crowd funding a legal challenge if we could find a suitable test case.

There was a huge push in 2009 to get gender identity included in the Equality Act. It failed then and I think any new attempt today would still fail.

No. They are glands etc located near the vagina but are not part of the vagina.

They are in the vestibule if you're being picky about it. And transwomen still don't have them.

I can't envisage any circumstances in which it would be lawful to exclude from a female space a trans woman with a female birth certificate and who has had vaginoplasty. I am personally dubious but maybe exclusion of someone without a GRC or surgery would be possible, but excluding a woman with both is such a high barrier I cannot personally see it ever happening.

Someone who genuinely cannot envisage such circumstances is either spectacularly unimaginative; hard of thinking; or disingenuous

So all this BS about there being nothing to see is BS. They seem to be pretending none of this was captured by the inquiry and changes to the EA2010 were not the sole purpose of Maria Millers Private Member's Bill.

Indeed. And we all noted who provided written evidence, whose written evidence was ignored, and who was invited to give evidence in person. And we all know that that very consultation warned about dangers of opportunistic prisoners such as Ian Huntley and so we also know that Maria Miller knew about this danger and ignored it.

I’m assuming by the tedious drivel posted that meetthenew is another incarnation of wakame?