Sex based rights in the UK?

[RobinMoiraWhite]

An interesting perspective.

rgellman.medium.com/there-is-no-such-thing-as-sex-based-rights-in-the-uk-140554a2c42c

Not really.

'Single-sex spaces existed long before the Equality Act was even conceived, and even well before the Equal Pay Act 1970. But they weren’t fought for over the centuries, but rather the patriarchal social structure meant that women were considered a lower class than men, and thus disqualified from sharing their spaces.'

History www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/History-of-Womens-Public-Toilets-in-Britain/

Additionally. All the charities around the world that have initiatives for single sex facilities to improve the safety, educational opportunities etc of women and girls around the world.

See also the reports of sexual assaults in mixed sex facilities in refugee camps.

Straw man arguments in my opinion. Also did the actually refer to the horrible Karen meme? A nice little bit of misogyny there ...

There are pregnancy and maternity rights for a start. The article is written from the pov of wishing there are no sex-based rights which isn't true at all.

One particularly prominent example is that of the Drawing Room. A number of stately homes (particularly in the UK) have a room called The Drawing Room. Not actually for undertaking artwork, but actually a shortening of The Withdrawing Room. It was a room created for one purpose alone: The men will go and discuss important matters; no women allowed

That isn't what a withdrawing room is.

@Alltheprettyseahorses

There are pregnancy and maternity rights for a start. The article is written from the pov of wishing there are no sex-based rights which isn't true at all.

That would also be the POV of the OP.

Yes Karen

I also have little time for things that refer to American history as if it's universal.

It's also not an original point of view, I've seen it in various forms for a long time.

The idea that sex is not a protected characteristic even though it is, is novel though.

Pregnancy and maternity is a protected characteristic but it doesn't refer to sex which is ok by me.

If that awful piece of writing was supposed to convince me to shut up and sit down, it backfired.

If you aren't familiar with any of the battles for sex based rights, if you can't conceive of why they are needed, then start with the rule of Chestertons Fence;

''Never take down a fence until you understand why it was put up in the first place.''

The person has obviously never watched a costume drama either

The women would withdraw from the table and the men would sit around boozing and smoking.

I mean even I know that and I hate costume dramas

Did you read my links about women's bogs Moira?

Well its hard to take seriously when one of the arguements is that wikipedia doesn't say so - could that be the wikipedia that is male dominated and any female focused entries are ruthlessly cancelled or altered by mind numbing obsessed incels who think of it as there space.

But it is concerning to see how a trans woman can so convince themself that the opposite of what is true is what is really true.

So many of the arguement dont even make sense, are historically incorrect, and ...

But worse still is the number of positive claps it has got.

In an era when fake news becomes real news articles like this littered round the internet will be the building blocs of the new reality that will determine whether women are recognised as a biological reality or the firment of male imagination.

On one level stupidly trivial. On another levle a worrying indicator of the future we will all be living in.

A classic bit of mansplaining — short of facts, misunderstanding basic points and deeply patronising.

This argument being put forward. That it's a sign of our oppression that we have single sex, anything. If we were equal we'd be in with the men.

Is just such an obvious load of patent bollocks I'm surprised that people continue with it.

Oh yes! Women have separate changing because we're lesser than men and the feminist thing to do is fight for the right for you and your daughters to get your kit off in front of random blokes. Girl power!

Fuck off.

I like the way it's presented as an interesting perspective when it's rehashed crappy arguments that anyone who spent any time reading stuff around this has seen a million times before.

Generally speaking, it's always enlightening when a male person explains that he won't use male facilities with fellow males because they make him uncomfortable, but that women have no right to exclude him because he makes them uncomfortable.

The right to choose who is around us doesn't exist. Noone can force unwilling people into our presence.

The right to choose who isn't around us does. Gellman should perhaps read the law a little more closely. The explanatory notes do a helpful job of explaining the law to those who have failed to grasp proportional and legitimate, with examples that clearly explain that if women are likely to avoid using a service for their own sex because a member of the opposite sex wants to use them, excluding that member of the opposite sex is allowable.

Gellman's little 'history lesson' about the exclusion of women has been written from Gellman's perspective as a member of the sex that wasn't excluded. Perhaps that accounts for the errors. Gellman is a member of the sex that had public toilets, whilst my sex did not. Even where public toilets were not available, Gellman is of the sex that has always been able to pee outside up against a wall or a tree, without needing to undress. To this day it is acceptable for the male sex to urinate in public, and they still do.

Bold move to claim that sex-based rights don't exist. Transparent, unfortunately, that the author has celebrated this misconception (despite apparently identifying with my sex) as a gleeful thing.

It reads as a long and inaccurate diatribe of "the female sex have no rights, I am thrilled to believe this, and if I as a member of the opposite sex want access to you all, there's nothing you can do to stop me"

Fortunately, Gellman is wrong, and this piece helpfully illustrates the lengths to which the opposite sex will go to demand that we have no rights to exclude them from accessing us.

Curious, RobinMoiraWhite, what you saw in this article that would be "interesting" to feminists?

For anyone who would like to read this but does not want to click on the main source, it's archived here: archive.is/lSRNr

For me - it's five wasted minutes of my life, as it's written by a misogynist child who substantiates nothing.

If someone here is US American and/or interested in US politics - which is what this author is talking about, although she has no real knowledge of US politics either - here's a much more nuanced take: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3311184.

First thing to note - the terminology used in the article is incorrect . The Act notes, 'exceptions', not 'exemptions.'

But this law placed on the service provider. Not the member of the protected class using it. This is a very important point, because it’s one that the Gender Criticals always fail to grasp: Nobody has any legal right to demand that there be a single-sex space. A service provider has a right to say it is not practical to provide one, or that it is not practical to provide a unisex space.

No its a completely irrelevant point. It's true that some people do not understand this, but it isn't the basis of serious legal opinion from lawyers like Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, so the argument is a straw man.

"Gender Criticals love to use this phrase to imply that trans people are somehow stripping them of these rights, and thus frame trans people (trans women in particular) of not only being anti-feminist, but actually bigoted."

Only the first paragraph in and they've already set up their argument with a false pretence. GC feminists do not think trans people are doing this. It's the very vocal and nasty tra's who are doing it. These activists may or may not even be transgender, but they definitely hate women who want to protect women's spaces FOR women.

"They have also tried to claim that the act describes “protecting dignity” as a legitimate aim, which indeed it does. However, protecting dignity is rather fuzzy notion. Again, the racial segregationists argued that it was undignified for black people to share space with white people; indeed any abhorrent argument can be made in the name of protecting dignity, and in the event of a legal challenge, it would be a court judge that would make that decision."

Not this bilge again.
Comparing single-sex spaces to racial segregation is just plain offensive.

This makes me uncomfortable” is never a valid reason for making law

Except this is rubbish. Legally and morally, rape victims and people who are undergoing intimate medical examinations very much have the right to say "this makes me uncomfortable". There is a point where one person's discomfort does not outweigh another person's inconvenience, and that is the kind of judgement that has to be made in equality and human rights law all the time. It would be good it it were possible to discuss this without being silenced because "no debate".

Single-sex spaces existed long before the Equality Act was even conceived, and even well before the Equal Pay Act 1970. But they weren’t fought for over the centuries, but rather the patriarchal social structure meant that women were considered a lower class than men, and thus disqualified from sharing their spaces.

Yes, the nature of the EA is that it recognises that discrimination can be used both positively (blue badge parking) and negatively (steps preventing access). Legislation and planning law seeks to balance competing needs. This is not new.

Conclusion: This perspective isn't very interesting because the writer lacks a basic grasp of both specific legislation and the workings of equality and human rights law.

Barracker great post.

The 'identifying as' seems to me as a female to involve inordinate amounts of experiencing male people telling me I have no choice, no right to boundaries, I cannot stop male people from having access to me if they want to and my feelings don't matter - and the impression that they're actually quite enjoying this smug, you can't stop me experience of demonstrating their perceived power over women.

It's no different in experience at all from the smirking sod on the scaffolding shouting "You're beautiful when you're angry darling'" if you glare at him for bellowing across the street what he thinks of your tits.

Same basic message : I have power over you, I'm really enjoying that you can't stop me even though I know you're hating what I'm doing to you. Who has this power regardless of how they choose to identify? The sex class with the penises. Who is the recipient of this behaviour regardless of how they choose to identify? The sex class born without.

Demonstrating in fact why females in the UK need sex based rights.

The experience of course is replicated when someone feels the need to pop over to remind female people on MN that it would help if they believe they're powerless as a sex class in the fact of unwanted male access to them and no one cares about their feelings or consent. One wonders why they find this experience rewarding.

I didn't find it an "interesting perspective". It's a pile of piffle composed by a lazy git who hasn't done their homework.

So the writer is American?

Why are they wasting time misunderstanding UK Equality Law when they could be fighting for legislation that actually protects trans from discrimination in the US?