Government Announcement

[crunchymint]

The Government has announced that it has “no intention of amending the Equality Act 2010, the legislation that allows for single-sex spaces”.

When it comes to arguing the case of justifiable proportionate and legitimate aims for a single-sex space (i.e excluding mtf transsexuals and males who self-id as women due to their innate female gender identity), all the other side would have to say is that they provided any "problem" AFAB women who felt violated with the option of using a separate facility. There are no public shared female-only spaces anywhere, anymore and AFAB women aren't entitled to them. I'm angry, but nothing can be done. Well done men. Laugh it up.

DietCoke

I’d be happy with that. Marks and Spencer’s would start out with one solitary cubicle for us “exclusive” women and likely soon find they’d need a few more.

I don’t mind if the third space is for us rather than the gender reassigned: as long as there’s an exclusive sex space. I can take the public shame of not being woke. I’m not cool anyway

Interesting idea Elletorro. I'll PM you with some thoughts.

@Elletorro good point lol. Would be kind of funny to see M&S shocked by the increased demand for expensive solitary cubicles from "exclusive" women who have probably never caused them any issues before. I just worry that many AFAB woman won't know what their rights are and obviously this whole issue extends beyond changing rooms.

That is really encouraging news crunchymint. Gives me hope :)

Does any know what is happening with Girl Guides trans? Seems that would combine female safety, child protection and the female-shortlist type scenarios.

Blimey who on earth would ever have thought we'd be thinking women might have to sue GG for discrimination against women?!!

I don’t mind if the third space is for us rather than the gender reassigned: as long as there’s an exclusive sex space.

Strangely enough this is what Snappity was advocating for on another thread. So it could perhaps prove popular with both sides.

Ready and waiting Ally McBeagle

Totally disagree with this

Expand Alexa?

I saw that Ex-Spectator editor and general Tory insider Matthew D’Ancona has an article about this in George Osborne’s Evening Standard in London

www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/equalities-minister-is-right-to-insist-on-civility-in-the-trans-rights-debate-a3873376.html

He has form for articles that minimise this debate though (from 2017):

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/30/tories-transgender-debate-justne-greening-gender-recognition-act

Sample from today’s opining:

The only conceivable route out of the moral quagmire is practical rather than ideological, and — to her credit — this is how Mordaunt intends to proceed. As far as possible she will delegate decision-making on access to single-sex spaces to individual institutions and groups — while insisting upon rigorous accountability.

She will endeavour to frame the debate afresh as a negotiation between citizens rather than a dogmatic punch-up between identity groups. In so doing she will be fighting the current of contemporary culture which — turbo-charged by social media — encourages individuals to cluster in tribes and yell abuse at one another.

Her insistence upon a different, respectful and genuinely pluralist approach is both politically bold and supremely counter-cultural. All power to her elbow’.

This reads to me like: ‘Women, Be Nice’ and also looks like he or Penny Mordaunt’s press spinners are trying to re-present her as somehow being the architect of the 2010 equality Act, ie these excellent measures he praises are rights that we already have under that Act- they are not new. Whole point being that govt are saying that they WON’T change the 2010 Act. I love how he’s trying to spin doing nothing as being some great act of innovation.

Sex is biological DNA. Most people will and have always respected that fact.

Good luck with that.

Strangely enough this is what Snappity was advocating for on another thread. So it could perhaps prove popular with both sides.

What I said was that a strict space in some circumstances makes sense for those women with a particular problem eg a relevant diagnosis of PTSD. It should never be extended to be something simply for those women who merely dislike being with trans women. There is a gaping difference.

No exceptions for women who don't want to share the changing room with men jerking themselves off while watching women take their clothes off?
That is certainly one way to drive women out of the public sphere. Require them to prove they have PTSD to get a bit of privacy and dignity in the locker room.

Snappity: "Transwomen are women and totally belong in the women's changing room, because they are no different from women."
Also Snappity: "Some women with a particular problem like PTSD might be distressed by sharing a changing room with transwomen, so deserve a separate space".

I don't understand, Snappity. If transwomen are no different from women, why would the women with PTSD need a separate space?

I’d be happy with that. Marks and Spencer’s would start out with one solitary cubicle for us “exclusive” women and likely soon find they’d need a few more.

If there's a unisex space, and I'm with my kids, then I would go in it. If there's a single sex space and I'm on my own, or if DP is here and he can be with the kids (they're boys) then I will go in the single sex one. The single sex facilities would have to be bloody terrible before I'd go in the unisex alone.

Snappity - so those women with PTSD are allowed to want a single sex space, and some males are allowed in the female space if they're vulnerable - this is all getting very complicated, and impossible to police. How about we go back to how it was, where XY go one way and XX go another. It's so easy to police that a 2 year old would manage it.

What I said was that a strict space in some circumstances makes sense for those women with a particular problem eg a relevant diagnosis of PTSD. It should never be extended to be something simply for those women who merely dislike being with trans women. There is a gaping difference.

Well that’s not quite what you said, you said women who have “issues” or an “actual problem” sharing spaces with transwomen should have a segregated space. Here’s your quote below.

Because if for instance there were 6 rooms with (say) half kept for women with actual issues of being with trans women, the service could be inclusive while still meeting the need if some women had an actual problem.

That’s a bit different from a medical diagnosis. But if you think women should have a letter from their doctor that says they should be allowed to access sex segregated facilities that’s something I’m sure we could explore.

Presumably women would simply need to identify as someone with "issues" or PTSD or whatever and that would be all it takes?

I mean this is rubbish though isn't it.

It seems to say that women and girls aren't allowed to be separate from men in any circs, until they have been abused by men, and then they are allowed to be separate. Why not cut the middle man and let women and girls be separate from men in circs where there is a higher risk of men doing something? We'll put you in with the men until you're traumatised and then you are allowed to leave seems very harsh!

It’s really great we’re at a point in the discussion where both sides recognise that there should be separate spaces for women who are uncomfortable sharing with transwomen.

So while we might disagree on whether there should be any kind of gatekeeping to allow women to access this space, the principle of this segregate space is no longer in dispute at least

Anywhere providing single sex space for men but not women is acting illegally.

I agree Lemon, sounds like progress

This doesn’t mean a lot. It means they’re getting in the thin end of the wedge as part of a softening up process. They know what they want might not happen now so they’re doing it piecemeal. Even if this concession is made now it won’t stay.

Without commenting on the rights and wrongs of civil partnerships for heterosexual couples, this is just an example:

When gay marriage was still illegal a lot of opposition to gay marriage centred around the fact it was thought it was going to undermine traditional marriage. So it was introduced as civil partnerships. That dropped a lot of opposition and got it through.

So then marriage was proposed for gay people. And of course everybody said “Well it’s just a name change of course”.

And then we had the court case yesterday which said that civil partnerships must be available to heterosexual couples if they’re available to gay couples. (Which the government must have had a good idea would happen).

Now, I wouldn’t agree with their views, but if you were somebody who at the outset of this had believed marriage would be undermined by the introduction of gay civil partnerships, then yesterday you would certainly have believed you were vindicated.

But the piecemeal introduction followed by use of the legal system has effectively swept this away.

There might be a concession for now, but I don’t believe it will stay. It’s a point on the road, not a destination.

You could be right Leah but it’s still a big deal for someone to go from

transwomen are women, and segregation is abhorrent, repugnant and vile^
to
^transwomen and women have different needs and sometimes women need segregated space away from transwomen

It’s reminding me of this quote from SupermatchGame

If you see trans women as men and feel that you are being forced to accept them in female space I can see how that could feel like having your boundaries violated

Really great to see the same kind of empathy and consideration for, as SupermatchGame put it, women who “see transwomen as men”.

Well in that case I've got PTSD and so does DD. And my mum, my sister, my mate Catherine, all the women on the school run, my neighbour, her kids...