Triggernometry :"Transwomen aren't allowed to disagree with Trans activists.

[Childrenofthestones]

Just a heads up for this Sunday's episode of Triggernometry where the boys interview Rose of Dawn and she makes the statement in the thread title above.
An extract here

This isn't EHRC statutory guidance, it's an EHRC statement about GRA consultations.

It was the news statement issued in July 2018

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/our-statement-sex-and-gender-reassignment-legal-protections-and-language

The advice and guidance is this:

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

a service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment

Sorry to read about your experience Detroit. It still must be very distressing.

Please allow me to reassure you. It wasn’t a threat.

Lang, is there any other advice or guidance from the EHRC that you seek to delegitimise or is it just that concerning ‘gender reassignment’?

Field I had no idea that it was settled law that transwomen with a GRC could use women’s toilets. Where does that come from?

Lang, is there any other advice or guidance from the EHRC that you seek to delegitimise or is it just that concerning ‘gender reassignment’?

Oh, don't goad. It's childish. You misrepresented a blog-come-statement from EHRC about GRA consultations as part of its statutory guidance about extant law. I pointed this out to you. Goading is not an appropriate response. "Sorry, I got that wrong and shouldn't have misled anyone" is.

It wasn’t meant to goad. But you’re right, apologies.

For the avoidance of doubt, here is the correct guidance from EHRC

a service provider provides single-sex services. If you are accessing a service provided for men-only or women-only, the organisation providing it should treat you according to your acquired gender. In very restricted circumstances it is lawful for an organisation to provide a different service or to refuse the service to someone who is undergoing or has undergone gender reassignment

PaleBlue I provided links what more do you want?

I've no desire to debate you, Field. I was perhaps selfishly missing the female camaraderie of this board.

My poor British sisters seem to be in much the same boat as women in my part of the world - forced to put men first, even in their direst need not to in order to recover from the abuses of men.

Not yet, Detroit .

Which is why some posters work hard on FWR trying to convince posters that it's a done deal/stop fighting/ the law's against you/ shut up and enjoy your erasure and exclusion.

If it was in fact a done deal, they wouldn't have to work quite so hard at it. A judge is currently exploring the police's pushing of interesting interpretation of law, the verdict should make interesting reading.

I’ve no desire to debate with you either. I wanted to put an alternative view and information.

I’ll leave it there then for now. I’m not trying to upset anyone.

Really Michelle! How interesting. Shamelessly invoking legal censure and legal compulsion where none is yet written into law? Very interesting.

I have only skim read it, but I could not immediately see reference to any case law as to when it is legal to discriminate on the grounds of gender reassignment within the sex exemption. Certainly there is a view that it would not be legal to discriminate with regards to toilets, but I didn’t think it had been settled in case law (there was only a first instance decision). Anyway, I haven’t got time to revisit it right now.

@Triggerpod - The comments about "it's just 3 men bla bla" are very silly and if applied to women would be considered sexist.

Fucking hell this is hard work.

'bla bla' is doing a lot of work here, isn't it?

Try this: 'it's just 3 [males] discussing which women's rights to give away to some other males, and which males should get them.'

These are not your rights, or Rose's rights, to give away. These are our rights and we say 'no'.

Also - I thought feminists have a great sense of humour?

No, we're the humourless sort here. We're not the fun kind. We don't find any of this silly.

Rose is a TS standing up for TS rights. Rose has never pretended to be on 'our side', unlike some others, and I respect that.

At the same time do we need to be mindful of the latest EHRC guidance?

No, we need to tell EHRC to fuck right off.

Their statutory guidance does not comply with the EA. It was drawn up in consultation with Press For Change and GIRES and a:gender and individuals like Sarah Brown and Zoe O'Connell. They got changes made to the statutory code to make the single sex exceptions impossible to use.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

The recent inquiry into enforcing the EA recommended that EHRC produce new statutory guidance to clarify the law so that it was possible for women's services to use the exceptions with confidence.

Both EHRC and the government turned down this recommendation.

EHRC said:

We do not accept this recommendation. We recognise that the law requires the consideration of the specific circumstances of each case and we are therefore producing a guide for service providers to aid their decision making. We agree with the Committee that there is a growing need for clarity on what the law says in reference to interplay between single sex services and single sex services exemptions – particularly in reference to transgender people’s rights.

The legal principle at issue is that of ‘objective justification’, which is already covered in existing Codes of Practice. Objective justification requires consideration of all the unique factors of a particular case, which makes guidance with examples of best practice or a Code of Practice very difficult as it cannot cover all eventualities that decision makers must consider. As the Committee noted there is no case law to draw on here.

Equality law cannot tell us exactly how to deal with all the situations that might arise in practice, and while case studies can be a useful aid they do not substitute the need to consider the specific circumstances of each issue. We believe that practical assistance is needed in how to make decisions in each instance and that is what we are working on developing for service providers, in discussion with providers, trans and women’s groups. We will be closely monitoring the impact of the guidance to ensure that it does provide the clarity that service providers and service users are looking for.

TL;DR - 'No, because there's no case law and we think it's better to train women's orgs in "case-by-case."'

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmwomeq/96/9604.htm

The government said:

There are limitations to what could be achieved through statutory guidance as there is no case law in this space that moves beyond interpretation of the original legislation, so it would not be possible to set out ‘rules’ for the application of exemptions: statutory guidance must reflect existing law, it is not a means of establishing new law.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201919/cmselect/cmwomeq/96/9602.htm

The staturory code has not changed. 'Case-by-case' is still in there and still means 'person-by-person' and not 'setting-by-setting'. Any guidance they have brought out since does not have the same legal standing as the statutory code.

EHRC shrug and say there is no case law. A huge part of EHRC's role is to bring case law to clarify what the law means.

The government says that 'statutory guidance must reflect existing law, it is not a means of establishing new law.'

Statutory guidance currently does not reflect existing law. EHRC have attempted to establish new law through their statutory code, in collaboration with TRAs.

No, we're the humourless sort here. We're not the fun kind. We don't find any of this silly.

Just silly girls being hysterical about men deciding what is good for them bla bla...

Men are so weird about other men once their penis has been detached, either accidentally or on purpose.

I've never heard a woman tell a breast cancer survivor with a mastectomy that she's somehow more like a man now and that men really should accommodate her with them.

It's very odd that men encounter a man whose penis has been removed and their instinct is 'this is now a woman, or as good as'
Similarly, they react to artificial silicone chest bags on a fella as if they also disbarred him from the chap club.

It's like they think women are plasticine little men, just with blobs added on or removed.

We're not modified men.
We're like, a whole nuther anatomical sex. We have our own specific organs and chromosomes and everything, lads.
We're set up to be able to make people.
If you look hard enough, you'll notice we're not just men-plus or men-minus.
You can't make yourselves into us.
And you can't make all of us pretend otherwise.

I suspect men are instinctively adept at recognising AGP, without perhaps analysing it too much. And aren't keen on a bloke getting aroused right next to them, due to their clothing/presentation.

So want the women to deal with it instead.

No thanks. Nothing to do with women. Sort yourselves out.

The comments about "it's just 3 men bla bla" are very silly and if applied to women would be considered sexist.

Fucking hell this is hard work.

Try this: 'it's just 3 [males] discussing which women's rights to give away to some other males, and which males should get them.'

Thanks for this Pencils. It’s about axes of power, isn’t it? Males have more power in general, and women’s rights (such as the necessity for women to be imprisoned only with other women) are in place because of that fact. So three men discussing women’s hard-won rights is offensive in a way that three women discussing women’s rights is not.

And I should imagine if the situation were wholly reversed, and three women (one of whom identifies as trans) put out a podcast discussing the rights of males at urinals objecting to obvious females walking in, then most men would roll their eyes and think it was pretty much not women’s business to be discussing that.

Good point barracker.

I also think it's because the interviewers both feel very manly - banter indicates they know how to 'man' - and so another man saying that they don't feel like that makes them think there's something to it. Removal of penis, incomprehensible to the 'real men,' confirms this.

Basic sexism.

Women see sexism more than men because the default for society, medicine and design, is Male. The sexism just isn't being recognised.

Hey, @Triggerpod - if you want to discuss women’s rights and boundaries with a man, how about interviewing @Glinner ?

I hear he’s pretty good at ‘triggering’ a certain group of people and you and Francis are both comedians, so a beloved comedy writer like Graham is surely the ideal guest?

Try this: 'it's just 3 [males] discussing which women's rights to give away to some other males, and which males should get them.'

I am a great fan of Rose, but yes to this.

It is paternalism - not too dissimilar to the Groom and Father of the bride-to-be negotiating the terms and conditions of the marriage contract in days long gone.

I wish I could understand why so many seemly aware people want to remove sex as a class.

Posie was our first proper dive into this whole debate so we were coming from a place of being uneducated on this issue and trying to educate ourselves.

Why are so many people pretending that the don't know what sex is? Do people really need educating about why women and girls need and want space away from men?

I doubt that Konstantin or Francis think it's their right to be included in womens sport, employment opportunities or changing rooms, so why do they need to consider why other men should be included?

It is paternalism

Further expressed in the ho ho ho, head pat, don't you little ladies have a sense of humour post. But the post identified as not being condescending.