'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?

Unfortunately from what I can see the sole focus of discussion appears to be focused on the fact that trans women need to pee.

Ah so you're new to this board.

Do open one of the eleventy million threads here that will explain what female issues actually are instead of what you're assuming them to be based on political prejudice. Then perhaps engage with those and we can have an actual conversation.

All humans have human rights.
Some human need additional rights so that they can participate on an equal footing with everyone else. Some people need access ramps, or BSL interpreters, or the right to breastfeed without being harassed. Not all people need those specific rights which is one reason why they are not included in general universal human rights.
The other reason is that they are not obvious if you don't need them. The people that do need them often have to ask for them, frequently and insistently.

If you are being churlish about some people having specific needs; you aren't really on board with human rights.

@AScottishMum

> Frankly, tough. Female needs and rights specific to female bodies have nothing to do with male people, male people do not get a say.

I don't see any men in this discussion. What I do see, though, is the likes of Boris Johnson restricting women's access to at home abortions in England and Wales.

Which is a far more important 'sex-based' issue than the current attempts remove existing protections from trans people—the sole focus of some who define as 'radical feminists'.

Tory men are making these decisions. Unfortunately from what I can see the sole focus of discussion appears to be focused on the fact that trans women need to pee.

So while your real, actual human rights (your term for your right to sex based bodily autonomy) are under threat, you remain distracted by conservative hate campaigns against the LGBTI community.

I'm sorry if you think my posts are word salad. Legal issues are actually fairly complex and require nuanced explaination, not simplistic twitter-style slanging matches. You can check out the ECHR 1950 and the scopes of the various articles yourself. Or I can post some links, if you'd prefer.

Ah, I see. Your angle becomes clearer.

Legal issues are actually fairly complex and require nuanced explaination, not simplistic twitter-style slanging matches.

Really? Fuck me backwards, that is some patronising you're managing there, missus.

Bedtime for me. Night, all.

Which is a far more important 'sex-based' issue than the current attempts remove existing protections from trans people—the sole focus of some who define as 'radical feminists'.

Can you be more specific here? What 'existing protections' for trans people do you believe we want to remove?

Unfortunately from what I can see the sole focus of discussion appears to be focused on the fact that trans women need to pee.

Where are these discussions taking place? I haven't seen them on here. Did you post this on the wrong forum by mistake?

Failing to understand what these 'good reasons' are that sex based rights don't exist.

I just gave you one example.

Both voting and property ownership were once sex based rights in the UK.

Once we developed the concepts of universal human rights, we learned that ascribing rights and responsibilities purely because of someone's sexual parts harmed women.

Be very ware of those who are telling you you will lose your rights if other people have theirs recognised or are allowed access to their rights. There's nearly always an agenda at work behind this. If you feel you're threatened, you can be convinced to get behind all sorts of abusive laws and behaviour.

Let's look at transwomen being housed in the female prison estate. That includes those who have self identified and do not hold a GRC (particularly the case in Scotland) and as we were informed by a visiting TRA (and confirmed by MOJ documents), the prison service don't have the right to view a person's GRC, meaning that self identification is essentially policy across the board. It also includes a disproportionately high number of those convicted of sexual offences against women and girls as well as a number of transwomen who immediately (and apparently completely coincidentally) detransition upon their release from prison. Housing transmen in the prison estate which matches their gender identity doesn't seem to happen in order to ensure their safety, strangely enough.

When you say 'if others have theirs recognised or are allowed access to your rights', do you include the situation which I have detailed above? There are specific exemptions in the Equality Act 2010 which allow discrimination against males (including those with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) in certain scenarios. Keep Prisons Single Sex's submission to the Government outlined how single sex spaces are a proportionate response by service providers - committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/16850/html/. The exemptions are being ignored in favour of self identification and as was detailed in the MOJ judicial review, validation of transwomen is actively given a higher value than protecting women from risk and fear. As these are exemptions allowed under the Equality Act, under the protected characteristic of sex, it's pure semantics to claim that they are not sex based rights.

I would consider this to be abusive laws and behaviour. The agenda behind it is clear and was in fact openly stated by James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance as an experiment in order to force the issue on other 'less controversial' single sex spaces.

It's telling that it is always the toilet issue brought up by TRA's. The specific realities of the prison situation is always studiously avoided or handwaved away as 'women shouldn't commit crimes then!'.

The Geneva Convention (as well as the European Prisons Standard) calls for separate facilities for women deprived of their liberty. But the UK prison system (and increasingly the US) have no such qualms.

The new term of 'sex based rights' was coined by GC Feminists who wanted to specifically exclude trans people from the women's movement, and turn what in the old days we'd just have called 'women's rights' to defining woman soley in terms of reproductive function.

You may have been legally trained to a high degree, but you've still bought into a faith based belief system.

What other definition do you imagine "woman" has, realistically?

All humans have human rights.
Some human need additional rights so that they can participate on an equal footing with everyone else. Some people need access ramps, or BSL interpreters, or the right to breastfeed without being harassed. Not all people need those specific rights which is one reason why they are not included in general universal human rights.
The other reason is that they are not obvious if you don't need them. The people that do need them often have to ask for them, frequently and insistently.

If you are being churlish about some people having specific needs; you aren't really on board with human rights.

This.

But protection from FGM IS a sex based right, simply because it applies only to females.

This is yet more obfustication and word salad to try and get females to please, please please stop saying nasty things about their own needs like 'sex based rights' because it makes male people feel left out.

Frankly, tough. Female needs and rights specific to female bodies have nothing to do with male people, male people do not get a say.

I'm frankly baffled by this persons cognitive dissonance and their fond imagining that they are in a position to push their belief as the reasonable one.

I'm just baffled that anyone would want to make it HARDER for women to have protections that were put in place for our safety and dignity.

I'm even more baffled when it's a woman.

WHY? What's in it for the people who want sex based protections taken away or made more difficult to access?

What rights do trans people not have just now? And can you give me an example of when those trans rights do not shit all over the rights of women who are expected to share their safe spaces with them now?

And Scottishmum can look at Peter Dunne's logic as i posted below, and justify how women being allowed a space without penises is the same as barring women who have a mastectomy, another example of tip top legal reasoning on this issue.

Thread reminds me of a certain green who merrily celebrated on twitter the "defeat of sex based rights" in some green vote.

Chilling.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of "sex-based rights" either - but it's no better or worse than "trans rights". You either talk about both or neither. You don't get to play Schroginger's framework where you flip position depending on who you're talking about.

Be very ware of those who are telling you you will lose your rights if other people have theirs recognised or are allowed access to their rights. There's nearly always an agenda at work behind this. If you feel you're threatened, you can be convinced to get behind all sorts of abusive laws and behaviour.

The irony of this one w.r.t to the screaming heebie-geebies from certain quarters over recognising women's rights is preposterous.

Have you seen IAmSarah's interactions with a crisis service provider who thinks it would apparently be the end of the world to have female-only provision, but are falling over themselves to have specialist trans/nb/whatever provision?

Only one side is trying to block the other side from having any provision here, and it's not women.

What a surprise. The term “sex-based rights” was coined right around the same time it became obvious that there was a massive move to remove them and replace them with “gender-identity based rights”.

Sex-based rights obviously included any and all laws where the words woman or man were used. Often, though not invariably, these would be for the protection of women (such as single sex prisons) but were framed as universal.

Clearly new situations call for new terminology. The drive to pretend that some men are women is precisely the kind of event that requires new language to describe what we had, and what is being removed.

Funny how ScottishMum isn’t lecturing us on the fact that “trans-rights” don’t exist either. Universal human rights are a commendable idea and frame, however when there is a conflict between separate groups within that framework, it is obviously necessary to define where the conflict lies.

Clearly new situations call for new terminology. The drive to pretend that some men are women is precisely the kind of event that requires new language to describe what we had, and what is being removed.

Quite. We seem to have otherwise hit the same points, but this gets to it a bit better.

There's been a similar, even more ridiculous thing, about "biological sex" being a new usage.

nitter.unixfox.eu/jessesingal/status/1492970492336082944

Well, yes, previously we wouldn't have needed to be specific. "Sex" would have sufficed until people started allowing legal/documentation sex to be recorded differently from actual sex. The term arose because of the need to be clear that we were still talking about the same thing we had always been talking about.

Funny how ScottishMum isn’t lecturing us on the fact that “trans-rights” don’t exist either.

Schrodinger's framework, innit. "Intersectionality for me, but not for thee". Squillions of axes of oppresion, but sex ain't one.

What are "trans rights" then?

If AScottishMum could answer this question that'd be grand.

All this rambling on about human rights law (which were are clearly too stupid and uneducated to comprehend) and it all boils down to a "but Tories are evil so shut up you silly women".

This Schrodinger's X thing is one of my pet hates - I think of it as neoliberal, but maybe that's wrong.

Being simultaneously two different things depending on for what purpose.

Like companies simultaneously regarding those working for them as either staff or self-employed contractors depending on which law/tax clause they're considering.

Or Internet companies simultaneously saying they're publishers and common carriers depending on what suits for any purpose.

Transparent arbitrary self-serving justifications all the way down. This is totally that. Come back to us when you concede "trans rights" don't exist and would cause harm.

What I do see, though, is the likes of Boris Johnson restricting women's access to at home abortions in England and Wales

What is this referring to?

Good grief. That reminds me so very strongly of a transwoman, Rebecca Gellman... hold on...

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

Gellman also had a stab at the Staniland Question, well, maybe not
The service provider is not under any obligation to please you, and in fact will be violating the law if they exclude a trans woman on your say so. If you cannot stand the idea that a trans woman may be in there, then you options are: 1) suck it up, 2) leave.

rgellman.medium.com/answering-the-staniland-question-c8c2a047e003

I can't get my head around a woman, one apparently versed in law, is spouting some of the same inherently flawed logic.

And the home abortion comment seems to be wrong too, doesn't it? There was an issue during lockdowns, but the 2-stage home abortion is available via the NHS. Process changed because of Covid and depsite lobbying to have it removed again.

Or did I misunderstand something in that uber edumacational word salad!

can't get my head around a woman, one apparently versed in law, is spouting some of the same inherently flawed logic.

Yes, it's very odd, isn't it?

What a surprise. The term “sex-based rights” was coined right around the same time it became obvious that there was a massive move to remove them and replace them with “gender-identity based rights”.

Precisely.

The service provider is not under any obligation to please you, and in fact will be violating the law if they exclude a trans woman on your say so. If you cannot stand the idea that a trans woman may be in there, then you options are: 1) suck it up, 2) leave.

Isn't leaving seen as a transphobic microagression (as stated by the University of Edinburgh)? So there is no choice. Stay and validate despite feeling fear or being uncomfortable or be labeled a transphobe. Anti woman campaigners just seem to ignore the allowed exemptions in the Equality Act while insisting that there are trans rights which are not being met somehow. We've seen it on this thread - there are apparently no 'sex based rights' but there are, of course, trans rights.

The service provider is not under any obligation to please you, and in fact will be violating the law if they exclude a trans woman on your say so

No. The exemptions to the EA for female only spaces already exist.

Oh, Eresh, Eresh, Eresh. You haven't got it yet, have you?

Fortunately, Rebecca explains it all for you. You just have to wade through reams of illogic to find it. The bit where Rebecca manages to mangle all understanding of the EA2010 is straight out of the RMW Handbook!