'There are no sex-based rights'

[lifeissweet]

Has anyone noticed that this is the position of the month for February? I am seeing it said repeatedly on Twitter, but I am not sure what point they are trying to make.

They seem to be quoting anti-discrimination legislation to suggest that introducing equal pay laws...etc 'brought an end to sex segregation' and that the Equality Act does not confer rights on anyone.

Does that slightly shoot them in the foot, though? If women have no rights by virtue of being women (and I would argue they absolutely do - the right to be protected from discrimination is a right - as are rights around maternity, which are also women's rights) then surely, they have no rights either.

And isn't it a weird thing when people go scrabbling around trying to find legal get-out clauses to excuse transgressing boundaries? We shouldn't need statutes to make people behave with common sense and decency.

What's the best way to counter this argument?

Unless the person arguing the case is important or has lots of followers then don't bother. It's not worth your time.

But take disability for example. EA2010 says you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of disability. There are no disability-specific rights, but in order to prevent discrimination, organisations are obliged to make provisions for disabled people to fully participate in their workplaces, services etc.

So EA2010 says you shouldn't discriminate on the basis of sex. In reality this places obligations on organisations to make specific provision for women (and men) in the form of maternity leave, breastfeeding facilities at work, single sex changing rooms etc.

Also this tweet: twitter.com/_anlka/status/1492056964762771458?s=21

Thanks, Oranges

I'm not engaging, as I know it's a waste of time. I just haven't seen anyone challenge it yet (as they probably also think it's a waste of time), so I just wondered what they are getting at exactly.

It seems quite clear to me that the Equality Act is law that gives rights (the right to be free from discrimination) to 9 groups of people. How can anyone argue that it isn't?

I find the mis-interpretation of laws one of the more frustrating elements of this debate.

Yip all we have are human rights

so I just wondered what they are getting at exactly.

What they usually mean is that you don't have a legal right to, say, a single-sex space, or female-only sports.

The rights that are spelled out are rights to not be discriminated against based on sex, and in the EA2010 providers are legally permitted to provide single-sex services.

But there's no law saying that single-sex services (or sports) have to be provided. Mainly because no-one could conceive it was necessary.

However, failure to provide for women adequately, due to lack of single-sex provision, would certainly fall under discrimination based on sex.

But then there are issues like who does that discrimination law fall on - sports, for example aren't a service, so a sports body isn't compelled to have events for women, or disabled people.

However individual areas may have their own specific rules and laws - things like single-sex provision in the NHS, or the US's "Title IX" for education, which I believe requires fair treatment of women's sport in universities.

But what's notable here is the appeal to authority from those who are normally all "anti-normative", "queer" and "ACAB".

A perfectly adequate response is "there are no trans-based rights", which is just as true, as far as I can tell.

Yes, I've seen it quite a bit. Sex is a protected characteristic, whether they like it or not.
Shouting, "no, it isn't" at women is incredibly lazy and, frankly, just plain stupid.

Sure there are. What is the right to take maternity leave, if not a sex- based right?

It’s an argument that pops up periodically and may, of course, be the latest flavour of the month,

It’s simply another bad-faith debating technique. They know they can’t justify removing our rights, so they pretend we don’t have them.

Their aim is to distract you from a point you’ve just scored for which they have no defence, and direct you into a description of which rights you have.

I suspect the correct response is a brisk “nonsense, women have rights and they’ve always been based on sex”, then a return to whatever point or challenge they’re trying to distract you away from. Go right back to it and ask why they are unwilling to respond.

Repeat as necessary.

If you're debating with someone whose whole foundational belief is that reality is formed by feelings and the discarding of the bits they don't like, it's a bit pointless expecting anything else they say to make rational sense.

It’s simply another bad-faith debating technique. They know they can’t justify removing our rights, so they pretend we don’t have them.

This.

I know I'm a minority on here but I don't think sex based rights is useful framing. I would rather use protections, mitigations etc. It has a clearer fit with the equality act and does not play into the hands of being saying we are asking for something like apartheid

@Polly99

Sure there are. What is the right to take maternity leave, if not a sex- based right?

I pointed this out to one tra on twitter and they said that maternity rights aren’t sex-based because men and non binary people experience pregnancy too. Gender ideology is faith based so it doesn’t need to make sense.

I pointed this out to one tra on twitter and they said that maternity rights aren’t sex-based because men and non binary people experience pregnancy too

It's just so fucking tiresome

Whatever you believe in terms of gender ideology, it is only people of the female sex who experience pregnancy. I know there is no point in engaging (although I suppose it might give lurkers something to think about), but these people do know this, really.

Unless they have been completely brainwashed - one TW at Posie's Nottingham event said he was a woman because he was born female, but wrongly assigned male, so he corrected that mistake. I can't imagine that he actually truly believes that, and if he does, I find that incredibly sinister.

Are the people saying this British, op? Because if they're not, then unfortunately they may be right.

If they're British then they don't understand the EA and its exceptions.

They are British when I have come across them. It's just irritating gotcha wordplay.

I pointed this out to one tra on twitter and they said that maternity rights aren’t sex-based because men and non binary people experience pregnancy too

Pregnant NB people and men are of the female sex. They can identify as whatever gender they like, they can’t identify out of their sex.

Maternity discrimination is separate from sex discrimination; presumably at least the right people will still be protected now that men can have babies....

They can identify as whatever gender they like, they can’t identify out of their sex.

Presumably this is more legal word play following on from the fuck-up caused by the Gender Recognition Act. As that changes legal sex, then things like maternity leave can't be restricted by legal sex, because some who have changed their legal sex may still need it due to their biological sex.

But that in turn is (roughly) why Freddie McConnell can't expect to not be a mother - that's also decoupled from legal sex. Someone of either legal sex can be a mother - as long as they're biologically female.

It's a necessary corollary of making legal sex falsifiable - you can't actually base things that are predicated on biological sex depend on it.

By that analysis there are also no human rights because some people identify as fairies, cats or aliens. People spouting this shit are dingbats.

@TheAbbotOfUnreason

I pointed this out to one tra on twitter and they said that maternity rights aren’t sex-based because men and non binary people experience pregnancy too

Pregnant NB people and men are of the female sex. They can identify as whatever gender they like, they can’t identify out of their sex.

Well, yes this is why it's faith based. It doesn't matter if you argue logic they just come back at you with ideological absurdity. TWAW TWAF

I've assumed it's because they're being advised from the US (as they have been in the past).
US law is different to English and Scottish law and they never seem to understand that, nor will they accept it when this is pointed out.

@drwitch

I know I'm a minority on here but I don't think sex based rights is useful framing. I would rather use protections, mitigations etc. It has a clearer fit with the equality act and does not play into the hands of being saying we are asking for something like apartheid

I don’t think you’re particularly in a minority, but the OP specifically mentioned Twitter, where shorthand, concise arguments are often in use.

The apartheid argument is easily dismissed unless they are arguing for the removal of sex-based segregation altogether. Mostly they are arguing for the preservation of apartheid, plus the right for a select few to choose which space they want to use, regardless of the needs of others.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It’s simply another bad-faith debating technique. They know they can’t justify removing our rights, so they pretend we don’t have them.

This.

Also agree with this. Very bad faith.

It's a necessary corollary of making legal sex falsifiable - you can't actually base things that are predicated on biological sex depend on it.

Well, this is the very crux of the issue with the EA/GRA clash, isn't it? Is there no mechanism for fixing when one law undermines another law?

@DomesticatedZombie

It's a necessary corollary of making legal sex falsifiable - you can't actually base things that are predicated on biological sex depend on it.

Well, this is the very crux of the issue with the EA/GRA clash, isn't it? Is there no mechanism for fixing when one law undermines another law?

I thought the exceptions under the EA had a very explicit example of where actual sex could proportionately override a GRA legal sex - rape services for women? I thought there was also explicit allowance for female only sport? And, of course, the inheritance of titles. Men for sure have sex-based rights in that case, don't they.

It's yet more word games - it's honestly all they have.

Redefining the word 'Woman' out from under us so now they say they're allowed in anything labelled for women, whilst simultaneously saying that there's nothing actually for women like menstrual products, as anyone can have periods.

It's just like my 8 year old loving asking me questions like "what's one plus one" and when I say 2, he say "no, a window", playing silly idiots with language to distract you and avoid having to actually think about the issue instead.