Help me reply to Lord Lucas now before debate on Monday

[refusetobeasheep]

He has responded to my email asking him to ensure the definition of women is born female at birth.

His question: How in a women's communal toilet can you reasonably ascertain whether another person is a woman or not?

Please give me your best answers now before I reply.

Especially safe guarding points!!

Will mention the way men walk, talk, look ... that entirely possible i have not spotted a post op trans before. but i would spot a bearded man or someone who made me as a woman feel unsafe. And the new self -ID would mean I would have to ignore my instincts and happily allow any man who says he is a woman to access my communal changing area / that of my 9 year old daughter ..

Last one: Baronness Brinton, part 1:

I thank Lord Lucas for securing this debate, and I think we all understood that the nature of this debate was going to be wider than perhaps the title of the debate proposed. Before we come on to that I just do want to make a very personal specific comment about the number of disabled toilets available and changing rooms available in public places, and whether or not they’re fit for purpose. I think LL debate is about finessing issues but disabled people often find that there are not disabled facilities available for them , they are in a slightly more difficult position.

The number of times I’ve gone into disabled facilities in a public building and discovered that it’s also the dumping ground usually, but not only, for cleaning materials and equipment, one restaurant just the other side of Parliament Square was using their disabled toilet as a spare chair store so you couldn’t even get in through the door let alone approach the toilet itself.
This isn’t a matter that requires change or regulation. It’s always about staff training and the culture of an organisation

Lord Lucas very carefully was trying to assess where the boundaries are in this difficult debate about women only spaces. and argued that some people needed them because they feel less safe - that men or others whether trans or not risk making these spaces unsafe.

My Lords, I think this could be a difficult assertion. In my years working with victims of abuse and domestic violence, one common feature is that they could they could never have imagined their perpetrator as dangerous to them until it was too late. Abusers look like us, all of us.

In January, a woman who posed as a teenage boy was jailed for grooming girls as young as 13 starting online and then meeting them. The judge described her behaviour as predatory and her targets, vulnerable girls, often started with low self-esteem, that’s why they were the targets.

And five years ago the Daily Telegraph wrote an excellent article, on female paedophiles following the jailing of Marie Black and Carol Stadler who were part of a gang in Norwich , and the article quotes forensic psychologist Nina Burrows, who says of female abusers, “I do believe women sexually abusing children, it happens less often than men, but it happens a lot more than you realise and I suspect it’s much more underreported” And she suggests that society has not been willing to learn more about female paedophilia she said we find it abhorrent because it challenges our ideas of women and motherhood we like to live with the idea that men are dangerous and women are safe, so when you see children talking to a male stranger in the park, it’s dangerous, but if they’re talking to a woman it isn’t.”

there are a number of very strange men in this world and I think it's entirely reasonable for women to want a separate space.

(Thanks pom )

Baronness Brinton, part 2

So I wonder, could I ask the Minister, can she give us data on the actual incidents recorded in changing rooms and toilets broken down by gender and type of crime, ie theft and assault, and could I also ask her, what practical arrangements could that could be able to be made to police these spaces. Because I think there are many people who find that their turning up in a space that is deemed by some to be inappropriate, it would be very difficult if it was expected to be policed solely by other uses of that space

My Lords, I want toilets and changing rooms and all public spaces to be safe for all users. The data doesn’t show us that transwomen are more dangerous than anybody else. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that LGBT people especially trans people are more likely to be attacked, more likely to suffer abuse and hate crime, and more likely to be at risk of suicide because of the pressure. So I just hope that we can pause for a moment and consider how a transwoman, portrayed as a possible danger to families by some might feel.

Last week, I saw on the BBC website an amazing young poet [name] tell of their experience. The concerns of non-binary, intersex and trans people rarely heard. I’m quoting selectively from their poem. “Our society has a limited capacity for people who don’t fit the norm. and we’re we normally offered male or female, mark the box with a tick, make yourself fit, but I am more that other, into this society entirely divisible by two, into man and woman, but I relate most to that ampersand and I need a hair cut, but still too often, for some of us standing clutching our bladders trying to decipher which bathroom symbol we better resemble, based on what we’re wearing or how brave we’re feeling. There’s a day to day battle like find a way to wear your own skin whilst navigating a world which you don’t always fit in. Life can be tough out there, so do you have to make a fuss?”

My Lords, I absolutely accept the spirit in which Lord Lucas has brought this debate but I am concerned that perhaps this matter is overstated.

Thank you pombear

Thank you Lord Lucas.

Lib Dem trope - violent women used to remove the safeguards for my daughters.

Banging on about haircuts???!! - what the fuck is she on about? I am happy to go to a barbers if they wash cut and blow dry long hair and sit alongside men. I don’t want the blokes in the barbers changing in front of my daughters if they happen to feel womanly.

For. Fucks. Sake.

The Lib Dem’s haven’t learnt from the swinson moment...

Thank you pombear

Lord Lucas's speech is heartening.

The bar for whether female people are allowed to retain female only spaces for privacy, dignity, personal boundaries and a non-hostile environment should not be set so low that they may only have it if they have proved, beyond all possible argument, that they will be attacked. Is that really all female people are entitled to? And how many is an acceptable number, what degree of collateral damage is reasonable to women to enable males? What does Baroness Brinton propose in a year's time if the statistics look bad? How is she going to reclaim female spaces once she's thrown them away for all women for her own personal political beliefs?

What provision will be made for female people who will have to self exclude from any space to permit male people to have a choice of spaces?

Why does Baroness Brinton not respond to the suggestion that the converted gender neutral spaces should be the male ones, not the female ones?

I am fed to the back teeth of the whole 'exclude' word in the debate. TW are not being 'excluded', TW already have full access to male facilities, and the issues they have with male facilities are never even mentioned never mind addressed. Other facilities could be provided. And no one mentions, never mind shows equal regard for females who will lose all access to any space if they fail to prioritise male feelings over their own at all times. There's a word for that: sexism.

The baroness seems to not like women at all

When in India at the moment trucks are being turned into safe toilets for women only.

Is it because only Indian men are unsafe around women.
Why is she protecting men

Well done refuse.

There are good but and bad bits but overall this is another example of sunlight and this war is only going to be won by thousands of battles.

The big battle is to take down Stonewall.

Baroness Brinton quotes something published in the Telegraph five years ago to prove that WDIT. This is desperate stuff. I am seriously beginning to wonder about the donations thing, because Sal isn't that daft. Or is she just doing it for a friend (Belcher)?
Either way, it's not a good look.

I am fed to the back teeth of the whole 'exclude' word in the debate

Me too. TW are, and should be, excluded from women's spaces because they are men. It's not a slur, it's a fact.

I admire the clarity of the speakers on this subject in the Lords and no hiding behind closed doors and mantras.

Baroness Brinton is a trustee of UNICEF who have a strong stance on women, toilets & education/public life impacts. Does she regularly undermine the UNICEF policy?

Whole debate is now here:
hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2020-02-24/debates/D9459D1B-FADF-4765-AB3F-F55D4B322060/ChangingAndToiletFacilitiesInPublicBuildings

This is Baroness Nicholson's contribution. I think this is important because she talks about the meaning of 'gender reassignment' in the Equality Act 2010 and who should be covered by it. It is generally interpreted to mean if someone wakes up one day and says they have decided that they are transgender, they are covered. She disputes this interpretation.

------

I request the Minister to think about the point I am about to make, which concerns the confusion the Equality Act 2010 has created around the definition of a woman. I will offer a comparison between the Act and annexe B of the National Health Service guidelines on same-sex accommodation. Why have I chosen the National Health Service? It is the single biggest employer in Britain and probably offers the most comprehensive suite of changing and toilet facilities of any organisation.

Annexe B is headed, “Delivering same-sex accommodation for trans people and gender variant children”. I point out to the Minister that this misrepresents the legislation that it purports to represent. The second paragraph starts:

“Under the Equality Act 2010, individuals who have proposed, begun or completed reassignment of gender enjoy legal protection against discrimination. A trans person does not need to have had, or be planning, any medical gender reassignment treatment to be protected under the Equality Act: it is enough if they are undergoing a personal process of changing gender”.

As is clear, instead of quoting the Equality Act, this guideline paraphrases Section 7(1), which states:

“A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person’s sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.

While the need to be proposing to transition, in the process of transitioning or to have completed transition is included, the NHS guideline omits the phrase, “by changing physiological or other attributes of sex”.

In order to qualify for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment within the meaning of the Act, the individual must intend to embark on or to have actively embarked on a process of physiological change. While the Act indicates that this should include surgery, the minimum requirement should be that the individual is taking cross-sex hormones or can provide evidence to prove that they are planning to do so.

With regard to, “changing … other attributes of sex”, since sex is biological, this refers to making some kinds of anatomical change. The Equality Act as passed into law never intended that individuals could simply self-ID as the sex they are not. Instead, the Act established qualifying criteria. Individuals wanting to claim protection from discrimination by virtue of gender reassignment had either to be changing aspects of their physiology or be able to prove an established intention to do so.

Proof that the authors of the NHS guidance have misunderstood Section 7(1) of the Equality Act comes in the second half of the second paragraph:

“In addition, good practice requires that clinical responses be patient-centred, respectful and flexible towards all transgender people whether they live continuously or temporarily in a gender role that does not conform to their natal sex”.

Section 7 of the Act offers nothing whatsoever about living in a gender role: it is about making physical changes or at least having evidence-based intentions to do so. A man could wear a frock, rouge and nail gel every day of the week for 10 years without qualifying for the protected characteristic of gender reassignment according to the Equality Act 2010.

It must be concluded that the NHS hospital guidelines contained in annexe B are significantly divorced from the wording and intent of the legislation that they claim to reflect. I want the Minister to think about that and identify whether the NHS should in fact withdraw its guidelines and do something that actually follows the Act.

The first media coverage.

amp.lbcnews.co.uk/uk-news/women-dont-want-woke-gender-neutral-toilets-tory/?__twitter_impression=true

That's some serious whataboutery from Brinton

Baroness Nicholson talks about the NHS guidance.
improvement.nhs.uk/documents/6005/Delivering_same_sex_accommodation_sep2019.pdf

Thread on the guidance is here.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3705528-New-NHS-guidance-on-same-sex-accommodation

Thanks OldCrone

• sorry can’t read the full thread now.

Does anyone know if a equality impact assessment was done or an FOI about it? I submitted an FOI and have been told to write to different agencies...

Well done to Lord Lucas for tackling this. He did a great job considering how much heat surrounds this debate.

Did the new Baroness Hunt turn up for this one?

Tanni was fantastic too (sorry reading the thread backwards )

I watched it live Ova and din't spot her.

That £1.4m donation to the LibDems has been worth every penny hasn't it?

That £1.4m donation to the LibDems has been worth every penny hasn't it?

It would appear so.

I'm a little surprised that Ruth didn't attend to make sure everyone understood TWAW. Could it be that she doesn't give a shit anymore now it's not her paid gig?

Thanks pombear for the transcribing. A much underrated skill!

The LBC article is great, thanks Wines! Great quotes from Lord Lucas and Lord Blencathra. I feel like some thank-you notes are in order, though whether I'll actually get round to it is another matter as I already have a big to-do list of emails and letters I want to send but never seem to manage!

You can intend to embark on anything. I intend to embark on the Titanic and head to Atlantis in May, personally. But anyone stopped at the door of the women's toilets only has to say 'I identify as' and that's the end of the conversation. They could have identified and intended to embark on transition two minutes ago or two years ago or two decades ago, it makes no odds.

As it's not rationally possible to challenge people and there is no ID for this, any male with any physical presentation has to be assumed to have self declared simply by the act of walking into a female only facility. This is part of the 'well if you get raped you can always call the police afterwards' kind of batshittery. And it's just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. It isn't about which males and when and how and are they genuine, it's about female sex based rights and about female facilities being intended to meet the needs of females.

It doesn't matter how genuinely intentional the male is, the fact is by walking into a female facility it is no longer single sex, many women are extremely uncomfortable about this, it represents a massive loss of respect for privacy, dignity and basic safety ethics for females as well as the removal of recognition as females as a sex class entitled to their own provision in their own rights, and some females will then be excluded from access to any provision.

Go and sort out the issues with male only provision, or provide additional provision. Stop trying to wangle away women's rights to better enable males.

Has Tish's thread been posted yet? Good analysis!

twitter.com/stilltish/status/1232280374434242563?s=21