Anne Sinnott vindicated - she was right!

[SwiftNC]

Link to article

But we knew that anyway!

Sorry. Just felt it was important to acknowlege and correct an error for some reason

I've done the same - sorrry Anne

Jeez. Sorry.

I need coffee.

Well done ann sinnott.

Well done.

(she's Ann without an E)

That's excellent news. There seem to be a lot of small things at the moment that are all adding together to make me feel slightly more hopeful.

CircumzenthinalArc I thought that but at least another Labour female candidate got in at the by-election. And Sarah Brown thankfully didn't.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/kelley-green-elected-to-cambridge-city-council-as-she-wins-petersfield-by-election-for-labour-1-5694834

Massive well done Ann. You are an absolute star.

"Amendments to the policy also make explicit that the council has discretion to apply the “single sex exemption” in the Equality Act 2010 in very exceptional circumstances."

What do they mean by this, though? I suppose normal changing facilities and public toilets aren't considered to be 'very exceptional', being rather everyday settings. But it seems to me that keeping all such intimate spaces single sex for the safety of women and girls is always going to be a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. I mean, if you assign higher priority to a woman's safety than a trans person's sense of validation.

We should send that piece to the GirlGuide UK!

in very exceptional circumstances

I take this to mean

• exclusion from places where women are vulnerable - undressing, sleeping etc
• exclusion from initiatives that are targetted at increasing participation of women in public life - in sport, in employment, in politics etc
• exclusion from services designed for and targetted at women

For instance, it would be wrong to exclude a trans identifying men from a lunch celebrating Women in Business. It would be right to exclude men who identify as women from being nominated for a Woman in Business award.

It would be wrong to exclude a boy who identifies as a girl from attending Harrow or Eton, or one of the other all-boy schools. It would be right to exclude them from an all-girls school.

It would be wrong to exclude a trans identifying man from a job in a nursing home. It would be right to exclude them from tasks dealing with the intimate care of frail, elderly women.

Pam You are going straight to hell... sentenced for talking common sense!

Yes, obviously the majority of women here would agree on the situations where the 'single sex exemption' should be applied. But I don't think they are all exceptional circumstances. Women need single sex facilities in their everyday lives, it's not an exceptional thing.

That phrasing seems to me like a warning that women will have to fight every single case to 'prove' that we are allowed the rights we already have. Like the people who will have to argue are the people who want to have a single sex space, NOT the people who want to have a 'single gender' space. Women's rights have always been considered negotiable so it's nothing new, of course.

There was a campaign on Facebook (?) where women were encouraged to comb council websites and point out where they've omitted 'sex' and explaining the law to them.

Looks like Cambridge was one such council....

I realise the article vindicates Ann, and for that I’m very happy.

But despite that, my reading was that the tone of the article was very sympathetic to Sarah Brown. The headlines
and bold sections such as “disappointing and worrying” show lots of empathy for SB and ZO’C.

Whereas Ann’s vindication was given as a cold factual statement that policy has been brought back in line with the law. Nothing about the relief women might feel, nor indeed any implication about the fact that SB had been responsible for changes that were heavily in SB’s own interest. Indeed from Ann’s statement, I gathered SB should never have been involved.

Sorry to be a downer, but I’m frustrated that the LibDems still fielded SB as a candidate, despite the fact that SB’s actions were questionable, to say the least.

It’s that trans-Teflon effect again.

The LibDems seem to be the preferred party for trans politicians.

women were encouraged to comb council websites and point out where they've omitted 'sex' and explaining the law to them Yes, we did that from here, can't remember who set it up, but I quite enjoyed adding the hits and misses of local council sites

More reversals would be good... anyone?

As a Cambridge resident: thank you Ann.

She still left her job over this so it's not a win exactly. Women still suffering for supporting women's rights.
She's been replaced by another woman - someone who seems like they're going to be a serious, committed local councillor.

I don't see Sarah Brown losing anything.
The by-election, for starters. Thank fuck.

I’d be interested to know who gave the specific legal advice on this. I am engaged in correspondence with the Corporation of the City Of London who said they’d taken legal advice and think that what they have done so far (ie massively biased consultation) is legal. It would be interesting to show them the legal view that persuaded Cambridge to put their house in order.

the tone of the article was very sympathetic to Sarah Brown. The headlines and bold sections such as “disappointing and worrying” show lots of empathy for SB and ZO’C

That's just shit-stirring from the Cambridge News. It's a poisonous rag aimed at elderly bigots - a poundshop Daily Mail with a target audience of the kind of people who moved out of Cambridge to the villages in the 1970s because the city was getting too 'colourful' (in my sister-in-law's charming phrase). They're constantly running articles on wanker-baiting topics, full of fake concern for the poor homeless woman who blew her inheritance on drugs (to take one particularly repellent example). This toilets article is more of the same.

Honestly this lot shouldn't be allowed anywhere near policy-making for women

"'Why three in a bed isn't a crowd' - the polyamorous trio
"When Sylvia's husband said he wanted to become a woman, she stayed with him. But then Zoe, formerly a married man, joined the relationship"

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/20/greatest-sexual-taboo-polyamorous-transgender

It is a good outcome but shocking that Ann had to lose her job over it. However, the tide has turned on this madness and perhaps councils and other organisations are going to be reviewing the wording of their policies re sex v gender in light of recent events. The issue is definitely becoming more widely talked about. There's peakety peaking going on left right and centre methinks!

FatherBuzz I think a lot of local papers are like that now (and are owned by the same people, I think it's the Mirror Group?)
Articles are written in a way to get as many comments as possible on social media to generate more clicks. Presumably this sells more advertising space. I saw the CEN article on the homeless woman. Her daughter was posting in the Facebook comments section. I'm sure the paper considered that a win

Hello Tigresses of Mumsnet!

Am so glad to be on the receiving end of your purrs and not your famous claws! Big "thank you" to all of you.

It's a partial victory but a victory nonetheless and more than enough to have got former Cllr Sarah Brown and partner Cllr Zoe O'Connell up in arms! Strange that they think an unlawful local policy has more weight than national legislation.

My standing down forced this change. I have no regrets. And I'm now free to speak my mind. My former ward is safe in the hands of Petersfield's other Labour cllrs, including my replacement, and my work on domestic violence/abuse has been picked up by other cllrs and will continue.

NotAnotherJaffaCake If we don't already have contact in some forum or another, please follow me on Twitter @AnnMSinnott or Facebook www.facebook.com/ann.sinnott.01 - so I can PM/DM you. Thanks.

Keep your claws well-sharpened you wonderful women!