Jen Ives LGB Alliance Twitter Row

[GrimDamnFanjo]

twitter.com/jenivescomedian/status/1506429824235151366?s=21

So, trans woman infiltrates conference, row ensues. Who'd have though it?

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

reposting this with an edit, because of the rules about Pronoun Usage

I believe DadJoke is asking us not to have unflattering thoughts about Ives because it's unkind and disrespectful.

I think it's unkind and disrespectful to call a gay man a "nonce" (I do have evidence of this- the statement from the victim, that's a witness statement), and to go into the women's toilets, in a place where everyone (including the women attending) knows they are intended to be female-only.

However, as usual, one male's feelings mean more than thefeelingsof the multiple women who were disrespected.

Ives sent out a message, and that message was, "no matterwhereyou go outside your own house, you cannot have female-only toilets". But now we're supposed to be kind to Ives, because although Ives made a theatre production of trampling over the boundaries of women, we don't know that JI recorded themselves doing it.

Perhaps Ives simply should have stayed outside the women's toilets? If Ives can't manage that, maybe best not to attend the conference.

Given that we've already had one poster say that the man who argued with Ives shouldn't be allowed out in public at all, what I'm asking of Ives (don't go to places with female-only toilets if you can't keep yourself out of them) seems a far more manageable request.

I've not said anything about anyone's thoughts, nor mentioned kindness or respect anywhere on this thread. At least be honest in your criticism.

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to a gay man being called a nonce, but if it happened, that's bad. I think it's staggeringly unlikely Ives called anyone a nonce, if you her accusing her.

It's against the law to prevent women using women's loos in a government building - it's not "proportionate".or "legitimate."

A security guard stopped her using the men's on one occasion, so she was escorted to the disabled loos as no one knew where the unisex ones were, and there may well have not been any.

I've have not said any of the other things you've mentioned, so stop conflating my views with theirs, please.

It's against the law to prevent women using women's loos in a government building - it's not "proportionate".or "legitimate."

This is nonsense Stonewall law. Single sex spaces are legal and provided for in the Equality Act, whether it was considered proportionate or legitimate to put the privacy and dignity of women and girls first ahead of MTF trans people wanting to use female only spaces without their consent would be up to a court to decide, you'd have to bring a discrimination claim if you felt aggrieved by being asked to use a different facility.

Oh, you absolute joker, you. Fancy you pretending you don't know what implication and inference are, while trying to educate us on the Equality Act 2010.

I am reminded of this quote

“No” is a word that must never be negotiated, because the person who chooses not to hear it is trying to control you.”

• Gavin de Becker, the Gift of Fear -

Seems that Ives chose not to hear the word no.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

It's against the law to prevent women using women's loos in a government building - it's not "proportionate".or "legitimate."

This is nonsense Stonewall law. Single sex spaces are legal and provided for in the Equality Act, whether it was considered proportionate or legitimate to put the privacy and dignity of women and girls first ahead of MTF trans people wanting to use female only spaces without their consent would be up to a court to decide, you'd have to bring a discrimination claim if you felt aggrieved by being asked to use a different facility.

Single sex spaces are legal and provided for in the EA, but people with a GRA or with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are by default included, unless there is a legitimate and proportionate reason to exclude them.

The only case law on this established that trans women can't be excluded from toilets, and on the basis they currently, legally use them and have done for decades, it's not reasonable or proportionate to do so.

No they are not by default included. They are the same as any other male. There's no special rule for them.

There is hardly any case law around single sex spaces and there is case law that males without a GRC are legally men, Maya Forstater wrote this interesting blog piece about the case law you are referring to. Worth a read.

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/05/29/the-case-of-sb/

The Equality Act single sex exemptions were intended to provide exactly that, female only spaces where required for privacy and dignity.

The only case law on this established that trans women can't be excluded from toilets, and on the basis they currently, legally use them and have done for decades, it's not reasonable or proportionate to do so."

Is there precedent? I thought there was only a first instance decision as in the pub toilet case. Am I missing some law on this?

It's illuminating how little respect some posters have for the comfort, privacy and dignity of women and girls. Always.

And there you have it. It doesn't matter what the expectations of an individual event are, or what the other attendees want, this trans ally says that transitioned males can and should do whatever they want unless there is a law that stops them.

Social contracts, and mutual respect be damned. Remind me again, is there an actual law that says I have to use preferred pronouns?

Or is it just a social expectation of courtesy?

this trans ally says that transitioned males can and should do whatever they want unless there is a law that stops them.

Yes. What an excellent message to send to women and girls. There is no way DadJoke would treat any other oppressed class of people with this lack of respect.

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]There is hardly any case law around single sex spaces and there is case law that males without a GRC are legally men, Maya Forstater wrote this interesting blog piece about the case law you are referring to. Worth a read.

a-question-of-consent.net/2020/05/29/the-case-of-sb/[/quote]
Which reminds me: Katy Montgomerie only got their GRC very recently* (as in the last few months recently) but seems to have been using women's toilets (and making fun of women's toilet habits) for a lot longer than that.

*They announced it on twitter.

Any man can enter a women's toilet, and vice versa. There are no laws about it.

Any transwoman without a GRC is classed as the same as any other male. There are no laws around any males using female toilets. What kind of male wants to use female toilets though, especially at a venue where they know for a fact that the women there are not OK with males in the female toilets.

What kind of male wants to use female toilets though, especially at a venue where they know for a fact that the women there are not OK with males in the female toilets.

The exact kind women and girls would rather not have there, as they have no respect for our boundaries. Boundary violation is and always will be a red flag. They might feel their intentions are benign, but women and girls have literally no way of knowing.

As I predicted on another thread, expect to see more women taking their male friends and relatives in with them in future, now the social contract is broken.

Interesting. I merely asked what someone was doing somewhere. A single line question. And, that must have been reported by someone; and deleted.

I was just wondering what happened; considering the alleged location and a recording device allegedly being involved.

The thread is holier than a block of gruyère

@Cailleach1

Interesting. I merely asked what someone was doing somewhere. A single line question. And, that must have been reported by someone; and deleted.

I was just wondering what happened; considering the alleged location and a recording device allegedly being involved.

Shhhhh! Don’t you know it’s not civil to ask that sort of thing?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

No they are not by default included. They are the same as any other male. There's no special rule for them.

That's not right. People with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are permitted, with certain exemptions, in single-sex areas. In the article you helpfully linked to, it refers to Alex Sharpes authoratitive article on self-id, which breaks it down.

"All trans women covered by the protected characteristic of ‘gender reassignment’ can lawfully access women-only spaces subject only to the sex-based exceptions, which can be invoked against GRC and non-GRC holders alike. "

"The scope for application of the exceptions is circumscribed. A woman's organisation seeking to exclude a trans woman from a women-only space must justify this decision on the basis that it is ‘a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’. This threshold may be difficult to meet in practice, especially in relation to bathrooms and changing rooms"

"Moreover, the burden of proof rests with service providers and any measures adopted in relation to trans women must be the least intrusive to achieve a legitimate aim ... not one single case has been reported where a service provider has successfully relied on a sex-based exception."

"...the very existence of the sex-based exceptions, as well as their circumscribed parameters of operation, serves to highlight how trans women's right to access women-only space is the default position under the EA."

Yes, there are legal minds who disagree with Alex Sharpe on this issue, fancy that!

As you're here though Dadjoke, perhaps we could get your thoughts on the large protest of most men shouting vile abuse at feminist women in Manchester last night?

I mean it is beyond the pale to scream abuse at people, right?

In the article you helpfully linked to, it refers to Alex Sharpes authoratitive article on self-id

Are there two Alex Sharpes writing on this issue? You can't mean the person I'm thinking of.

Screeching abuse outside a building of women talking about sexual violence and FGM, but then you think it's ok for FGM activists to be harangued by TRAs if they don't toe the gender identity ideological line, I seem to remember, Dadjoke.

not one single case has been reported where a service provider has successfully relied on a sex-based exception.

Jesus. Effectively, then, the Equality Act is not being upheld.

You know what, make it all mixed sex. Do it now. I would rather everyone knew it was mixed sex than this bullshit pretend arrangement where women's 'single sex' spaces actually means 'women plus any males who feel they wish to use them'.