Debbie Hayton in the Times

[Igneococcus]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-are-right-to-have-concerns-over-trans-reforms-5kj5k28sd?shareToken=aa090ad90f6f886db629247a0d6ca19b

Debbie, if everything changed tomorrow to say that all single sex spaces must be enforced and males could not use female spaces or if they did they risk prosecution, would you respect that or would you continue to use female spaces?

I was looking back over the thread to see if ther had been deletions and noticed this in one of Debbie's posts, I hadn't picked up on it at the time but I really think this is worth discussing!

How do you protect against the transwomen who do not leave when they are asked because they think they really are female? So in their minds female only spaces include them

Now I don't know about anyone else but if you have a penis or have ever had a penis I cannot see how you can think you really are a female in the biological sense and not a TW.

Debbie can correct me if still around and I'm interpreting this wrong but it sounds to me like a statement that some TW actually seriously believe, despite physical evidence to the contrary that they are biological females and that any restrictions of TW in female spaces don't apply to them.

This is a level of delusion that scares me, and highlights the danger of playing along with pronouns so as not to upset anyone. Am I over reacting to this? I know it's the sort of statement one of the activists in cloud cuckoo land might make but I would assume they didn't actually believe it and dismiss without consideration as absurd, but this was said here by someone we considered an ally that's clearly intelligent and a teacher and making this point as a serious contribution to the discussion.

Is self-id GRA a step towards competely abolishing any sex/gender determinants?

Yes.

Loughborough Uni press release:

Are the traditional gender distinctions of male and female an outdated concept in modern-day law?

Academics are set to explore whether a person’s gender is still relevant in modern law.

research council project page:

should gender remain a legal status assigned at birth; and what would be the implications of reforming this?

The final work package draws the research together to understand key points of disagreement and tension regarding reform; and to assess the best reform option for going forward. This recommendation will be elaborated as a draft Bill in light of the data and legal principles of "good reform" to emerge from the research.

A) Advisory Group (AG): Including representatives from the EHRC, Stonewall and EDF.

(EDF here is the Equality & Diversity Forum, not the energy supplier)

Davina Cooper's previous paper on which this research project builds.

This thread is brilliant

Agreed. Its really hard for women to say actually no, these boundaries are mine, to the point whree it became alien. Women having confidence to say that shouldnt be heartwarming, something to celebrate, but it is and its lovely to see.

Academics are set to explore whether a person’s gender is still relevant in modern law.

To much to hope they'll come to their senses and realise, nope, 'gender' is completely and utterly irrelevant in law (save only that people shouldn't be discriminated for not conforming to stereotypes) but that sex is relevant.

Doyenne, I don't think you are over reacting.

That statement you quoted might as well say 'what authority do you have to say no to a man, what power do you have to stop us doing whatever we like'

Everyone knows what male and female is, everyone knows that women means adult human female and is not a social category.

If a man genuinely believes that he is female, that his problem and not something that I have to humour, accommodate or believe.

Things have gone too far.

There are far too many men forcing their way into our spaces.

We have to have a zero tolerance to men in our spaces from this point on.

It makes me sad to say that, as a couple of years ago, I would of accepted people like Debbie. Even though it would of made me uncomfortable and less safe. But I have been socialised to be kind and inclusive at the expense of my own feelings.

So now the line has to be drawn on the sand and that line has to be biological woman from birth are the only people allowed in women's spaces.

I am sorry this will upset some nice people but our daughters privacy and safety is at stake and we can not tell the difference between nice and violent men, so all men must be excluded.

I am very surprised that Debbie would wait to be asked to leave a women's space. As in my experience it is those people who ignore woman's requests to leave our spaces alone ARE the most important to get out of our spaces!

I hope I misunderstood Debbie but as a parent of a daughter, you must see why this line needs to be drawn.

Then legally we can call the security guard/bouncer/police if a man (however he identifies) is in the women's spaces and get him removed.

Though ideally I wish we could exclude all biological men included post OP and ones with GRC, that would be the safest solution for women and girls.

To much to hope they'll come to their senses and realise, nope, 'gender' is completely and utterly irrelevant in law (save only that people shouldn't be discriminated for not conforming to stereotypes) but that sex is relevant.

I suspect that is too much to hope for Errol. This is from a footnote in the lead researcher's previous paper. They're not even making the distinction:

To avoid repeatedly referring to sex/gender, we use “gender” to cover both the state’s legal assignment of sex or gender status, and the regulation and expression of both sex and gender identities.

Guess they have no medics at Loughborough then. So stupid it makes you want to weep. Sex isn't legally assigned, sex is biological fact.

Then legally we can call the security guard/bouncer/police if a man (however he identifies) is in the women's spaces and get him removed.

Being able to do that would require amendments to the Equality Act.

"Being able to do that would require amendments to the Equality Act."
This is ridiculous, why is it so difficult for women to exclude men. Why do we have to justify why we want to exclude men.

I am so bloody fed up with this whole man orientated law.

Maybe the answer is to get rid of GRC all together. Add category of sec to the equality act and maybe THEN we can have a female only space.

Maybe the answer is to get rid of GRC all together. Add category of sex to the equality act and maybe THEN we can have a female only space.

I feel very negative about hope for resolving this and maintaining protection fro single sex spaces.

American gun laws crossed a line when they did nothing to prevent endless shootings at schools.

We have a similar situation here with a convicted rapist paedophile sent to a woman's jail.

The fact that no one in that system thought "well, this is a bad idea" shows me how very little the system cares about women.

We need a coup. An actual coup of women rising up saying "get out of our fucking spaces", "stop killing us", "don't move our statues", "stop paying us less", "respect our unpaid work" and whatnot.

Sex already is a protected characteristic in the EA.

Women can exclude males from women only spaces. Its just that some men won't take no for an answer.

Being able to do that would require amendments to the Equality Act

nope

protected characteristics under the EA include gender reassignment and sex.

but they're not ranked, they're equally important.

so where having single sex spaces, meaning you also exclude members of the opposite sex who have undergone / are under going gender reassignment allows you to meet a legitimate aim (like providing privacy, dignity and safety to women), then that's fine.

QueenYnci Sat 15-Sep- at 18 23:45:32

In my opinion, you were making yourself perfectly clear.

so where having single sex spaces, meaning you also exclude members of the opposite sex who have undergone / are under going gender reassignment allows you to meet a legitimate aim (like providing privacy, dignity and safety to women), then that's fine.

Rarely used and almost never for things like toilets and changing so there probably would need to be some change.

but legal Zhora

no need to change the law

the right to single sex spaces where it is proportionate is already enshrined in law

now we just need to make sure all relevant organisations understand that

now we just need to make sure all relevant organisations understand that

This is the important point.

That sounds more positive, Thank you. BernardBlacksWineIcelolly :)

It's rarely used because EHRC added the 'case by case' requirement in the statutory code after pressure from trans orgs.

From the Code (p198):

A service provider can have a policy on provision of the service to transsexual users but should apply this policy on a case-by-case basis in order to determine whether the exclusion of a transsexual person is proportionate in the individual circumstances.

From the Codes of Practice post-consultation report:

page 11:
vii. Various transsexual stakeholder groups responded to the formal consultation and also participated in the parallel consultation events taking place on the non-statutory guidance.

Feedback from the consultation events was incorporated into the employment and services codes where appropriate, particularly on issues of confidentiality, use of single sex services and the legal definition of transgender.

page 13:
e. Services, public functions and associations
• A number of concerns were raised about the exceptions, in particular the exceptions for charities, single sex services and separate services.
These sections have been revised as a result.

Adding 'case-by-case' (which appears nowhere in the Act itself) makes the exception virtually unuseable because it makes it personal. The service provider now has to show that it was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to exclude this particular TW. So we get into Tara Hudson territory and we can all see where that's led us to.

Most providers of the most desperately needed women's services are not wealthy, they are voluntary orgs run on a combination of donations, small grants and local authority contracts (which they have to compete for every few years). They know if they're taken to court they might end up bankrupt. They know that if they try to use the exception they will likely not win the LA contract (because the LA wants it done as cheaply as possible and don't want to have to fund alternative services for trans, or even for men).

And because those kind of services are the most 'extreme' - DV, rape crisis etc., it sets the bar for less 'extreme' contexts like changing rooms - if Women's Aid don't use the exception for refuges it makes it much harder for changing rooms to use it.

As well as the GRA consultation, there is currently an open consultation on Enforcement of the Equality Act which asks a lot of questions about the role of the EHRC.

It's not as straightforward as the GRA consultation but the response format is a lot less structured, so if anyone has any relevant experiences or thoughts, send them a letter.

I wasn't talking about the forum. I was talking about spaces. Again I come back to the pragmatic: how do you protect against transwomen who do not leave when asked because they think they really are female? So in their minds female only spaces include them?

Debbie

I for one got that you were talking about spaces not MN. But how do you apply that to any other MTF? Including Jess Bradley, Zinnia Jones, David Challenor?