C4 now labour leadship hustings question on trans pledge

[stumbledin]

Not a very strong question. Just more is this going to divide us.

Lisa Nandy again going on young consituency.

Can watch on C4+1

If trans people didn't exist they wouldn't be able to argue that women's single sex spaces should be taken away from us. At this point we literally could not be more aware that they exist, we just don't agree that what they're demanding is acceptable.

Lisa has clearly had some updating and tried to smooth over the issues without admitting she was wrong. Still no clearer.

I think they're all regretting the pledge but can't admit so.

"Other countries have gone further, we can go further"

Stramer hasn't a clue.

I would have so much more respect for someone like Nandy if she said I have heard what you're saying, I've maybe got this wrong.

Which is to say, I would have some respect.

But I don't think the media or social media make it easy to admit you were wrong. It impoverishes the debate IMO.

I agree the question could have better thought out, but can we knock it off with the rude “shit question” comments? At least that woman was brave enough to ask the question. More than likely she’ll end up being called transphobic just for daring to ask about women’s safety. I was glad the woman at the end got a chance to comment about the risk of women being too afraid to ask for help. Hopefully there comments, coupled with the three stooges’ responses, will still make the public think, WTF?,

Actually, the question was a good open ended one. She deliberately left it open so that they couldn't gauge her thinking and try to answer for her rather than their actual beliefs (or what they've cooked up.)

teacher analysis

Nandys answer was just like the sort of answer I sometimes give at early in the school year parents eves, sandwiches of positivity (safe spaces) and illustrations of interesting things they've been up to.

when I'm still trying to get the measure of them

I don't think it was a shit question, it opened up the dialogue

I agree @listeningquietly - Momentum are like a couple of booster rockets he'll jettison as space junk as soon as he's in orbit.

Keir Starmer didn't show any consideration for women at all. He's gone down in my estimation.

They've already demonstrated that they don't understand the issues

Nandy talks about the young trans person in her constituency, who is 'going through the gender recognition act process', and how they're being bullied and stigmatised. I don't see how the bullying and stigmatisation is connected to a bureaucratic process, nor how changing that process would affect their day to day life. She has not explained this connection.

She has also said this is a 'young person', and talked about their family being involved. If this is a child, they can't actually be 'going through the GRA process', since it's not open to children.

If what she's really referring to is how traumatic it is for a child to 'transition', perhaps she should be asking whether children should be embarking on this course of action at all, rather than being helped to accept their bodies as they are.

I noticed that too. If she hasn't even realized that the child she's using as proof that what she's insisting on is right can't be going through the GRC process, because child, then why on earth should anyone take anything else she says about this seriously? If the leadership candidates are going to make this a plank of their campaigns then they should be reading up on at least the basics. Perhaps they could all google "what is a GRC".

RLB on Andrew Marr definitely said very clearly that a TW would have access to all women only spaces. Did she back down on that today - I didn’t see it..

There seems to be plenty of info and stories online suggesting the existing GRC isn't overly hard to get as it is.

I am very fed up of hearing about this one constituent. It's funny how it would be bad to base laws on individual "bad" tw like Karen white, but nandy has no qualms about basing her whole approach on a single "good" constituent

I’m going to go out on a limb here but the young person Nandy keeps referring to more than likely doesn’t exist.

From the spectator article:

The law is clear, however, that these spaces must proceed for a starting point of welcoming and respecting a trans person, and this exception can only be used on a case-by-case basis as “a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”

This is not what the EA says at all. This only appears in EHRC's statutory code, written in close consultation with TRA groups.

I’m going to go out on a limb here but the young person Nandy keeps referring to more than likely doesn’t exist.

I hope they don't. Because it's really inappropriate to keep using them in this way to make a point.

If what she's really referring to is how traumatic it is for a child to 'transition', perhaps she should be asking whether children should be embarking on this course of action at all, rather than being helped to accept their bodies as they are

Hope this isn't too much of a derail, but I saw this on the BBC homepage this evening and did a double take because I thought it said body dysphoria. It's actually dysmorphia but the similarities are glaring. In fact I'd like to know why the treatment for dysphoria should be any different. www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zffpt39

This is not what the EA says at all. This only appears in EHRC's statutory code, written in close consultation with TRA groups.

This is from the government's own guidance on the EA.

The Equality Act 2010 contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination which allow the provision of single-sex or separate-sex services for men and women. A business or service provider can decide whether and how a transsexual person can use such a service, depending on all the circumstances. The decision must be ‘objectively justified’ – in other words, it must be a fair and reasonable way of achieving a legitimate aim.

Providers of separate-sex services (such as toilets, changing facilities or saunas) have the right to make decisions on what facilities transsexual people can use – but remember that this is a very sensitive issue and it is important that you take the views of the transsexual person into account when making the decision.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/85009/business-summary.pdf

Surely the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls and their right to a single-sex space in some circumstances is a 'legitimate aim'.

I can't think of a single circumstance where it would be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to have separate or single sex services, where it would not also be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to exclude tw from female only spaces and services.

If tw are to be included in a female only space/service then how is it proportionate to exclude men in the first place? And what on earth is the legitimate aim in this situation?

That's exactly the issue, isn't it? There is no space or service in which it would be appropriate to include transwomen where it would not also be appropriate to include men. If a space is for women, it is not appropriate to include adult males. I cannot think of a single situation in which I would want to exclude males who identify as men but not males who identify as women.If I'm OK with having males there then I'm OK with having males there, if not then not. There is no special "well this one is a bit feminine so it's OK" exception.

From my reading of the 'exemption clause'..basically it could be argued that ANY single sex area existing in the first place makes the fact of it being single sex a 'legitimate aim'. Surely.

The way the first commenter articulated it was perfect. "It's taking away from women". I bet that made a few pennies drop.

Other countries have gone further, we can go further"

Let's not, eh?