WPUK and the attack on the Equality Act exemptions

[PeakPants]

Not sure if everyone has seen this- it's from WPUK's twitter account. As you know, there has been some significant progress in that the government has now officially confirmed that they will not be amending the exemptions to the EA that allow same sex spaces. However, there has been the usual patronising rubbish about how feminists got it the wrong way round and that amending the EA was never on the table (both on here and on twitter). This is a great summary from WPUK showing that it most definitely WAS on the table and that the campaigning has had a real impact.

My view is that the EA must be reformed to place a duty, not an option on service providers to provide same sex spaces where proportionate and necessary for safety, privacy and dignity. But this is a good start to that.

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

Lol snappity your grasp of law is shaky at best. Luckily there are a number of legally trained feminists on this board. If you had a genuine argument other than ‘there is zero difference between a female and a male who claims to be female’ there might be more engagement. You contradict yourself hugely too because if biology makes no substantive difference then why segregate at all and why can trans women not use male facilities, seeing as genitals are unimportant?

lang Absolutely. I mean, just look at the rage that occurs when this topic is even mentioned hereabouts. How many red flags do we need to say that women subject to DV need their own spaces?

exactly ......this is what spurs me on to do something about it.

Lol at the BBC. Ridiculously obvious agenda.

@AomisHades

I think it is probably normal. However I think this situation is unique in that the particular ideology of “transwomen are women” or in this case “transgirls are girls” means it is impossible to make any distinction between transgirls and girls and therefore impossible to assess the impact on these two different groups separately. This would not be the case for eg a disability organisation. They would be quite capable of assessing the impact of any of their suggested guidance on all children as they have no ideology which prevents this and eg supporting disabled young people does not conflict with the fundamental human rights of others.
So I don’t think this will have come up before in the same way.

Also, the children’s commissioner is presented with guidelines from a reputable organisation whose production have been funded by Scotgov and endorsed by them.
It’s obviously a no-brainer, quite literally. Stamp and sign off without engaging brain. Then they are sent to the local authority who sees they are produced by a reputable organisation and endorsed by Scotgov AND the children’s commissioner. Stamp and sign off without engaging brain. Then they are sent to individual schools who see they are produced by a reputable organisation, endorsed by Scotgov, the children’s commissioner AND their LA. Stamp and sign off without engaging brain.

It’s basically a massive pass the buck exercise with Scotgov essentially leaving schools high and dry.

I cannot believe what is now happening in schools in Scotland. There appears to be no joined up thinking. And what about the results of the recent public consultation. I filled it in despite being English and not living in Scotland. Did no one think it prudent to consider this first?

You do not have to debate being a woman. You are one. Your biology, the inequality you lived, the knowledge you have that came from this. You do not need to debate whether you are a woman

And if you read the judgement that is what the ECJ has said about MB. There's no debate: her sex is female.

Lemon that explains it beautifully. A no brainer indeed.

Snappity : there's no point using words you don't understand the meaning of. I'm sure you agree. Unless you know what 'female' means, there's no point in you using it. Please refrain.

There's no debate: her sex is female.

I think there is a difference between 'treated as' and 'is'

Just as there are differences between the common usage of many words, and their legal definition.

Because to suggest that being legally female makes you biologically female is clearly ridiculous - the law isn't magic.

to suggest that being legally femal makes you biologically female is clearly ridiculous - the law isn’t magic.

Your comment about the law made me laugh. Clearly it isn’t magic. I so cannot believe MB won. When I was younger, I was led to believe the differences in pension age was brought into being because women are physically weaker and to represent the challenges their bodies go through during childbirth. Idk if it’s true but that cannot be said for a trans person.

I believe the link in the OP has now been updated to include even more calls for the EA exemptions to be scrapped.

And the GOVERNMENT said we agree with the principle of this recommendation that the EA exemptions should be scrapped. The government. Thankfully they now seem to have changed their position.

damn and Snappity are being disingenuous and wilfully ignorant to what is staring them in the face. How damn can say that there is no evidence that the government was ever thinking of scrapping the exemptions when it is there in black and white...

And still no answer from either of them why they think trans people should have rights of dignity and privacy but natal women should not. Because there is no answer (other than 'I don't give a shit about natal women as long as I'm alright, Jack').

Well in terms of the law, retirement age has now been equalised between the sexes (for those born after 1960) and I think this is fair enough. I don't think there is a strong case for women being able to retire earlier than men, given that many women will live 25 years after the current pension age. Therefore, I don't have a problem that MB won.

Anyway, the case was based on discrimination because the law used to require that a marriage be annulled before someone could get a GRC. That is no longer the case as same sex marriage is now possible. The CJEU said nothing about MB becoming biologically female, as Snappity suggests- this was about whether MB could be treated as having acquired a female gender despite not having a GRC given that the only reason MB did not have a GRC was that she did not want to have to annul her marriage according to the law at the time.