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?

There is hardly any case law either way. There are women's refuges and rape counselling services that are completely single sex, some of them proudly so. They will signpost males of any gender identity to more appropriate support.

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.

No. Otherwise single sex would be single gender.

No human has ever changed from one sex to the other. It is even called 'GENDER reassignment'.

GENDER.

You know, different from SEX.

You'd think you'd have got it by now.

As they should. Most female survivors, when anyone has actually bothered to ask them, have said they do not want to share communal accommodation or counselling sessions with males.

There is no special permission granted by the Equality Act for males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to use female spaces.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

There is hardly any case law either way. There are women's refuges and rape counselling services that are completely single sex, some of them proudly so. They will signpost males of any gender identity to more appropriate support.

Shonagh Dillon's thesis is freely available online. She reports some very interesting differences between her interview and Stonewall's work.

"‘#TERF/Bigot/Transphobe’ – ‘We found the witch, burn her!’"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4287881-Congratulations-Shonagh-Dillon-for-Defending-Your-PhD-TERF-Bigot-Transphobe-We-found-the-witch-burn-her?msgid=108769551

Thank you! I have skim read it and I follow her online but I need to sit down and read it properly.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

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

I'd appreciate a link if you have one.

Plenty here for you to get stuck into.

legalfeminist.org.uk/

@AlisonDonut

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.

No. Otherwise single sex would be single gender.

No human has ever changed from one sex to the other. It is even called 'GENDER reassignment'.

GENDER.

You know, different from SEX.

You'd think you'd have got it by now.

I'm offering an interpretation of the law from a legal scholar. What you've said is a non sequituur.

Thank you, @EmbarrassingHadrosaurus - Shonagh Dillon's work looks very useful.

And pretty depressing.

Seriously? We are letting a bunch of lobbyists do crap research with no academic rigour of peer review -and then formulation policy. procedure and legislation on it?

Jesus wept.

Seriously? We are letting a bunch of lobbyists do crap research with no academic rigour of peer review -and then formulation policy. procedure and legislation on it?

Yes, there are some major problems with the academic and research community.

Look at some of the ESRC money that's been spent on nonsense.

I'm offering an interpretation of the law from a legal scholar. What you've said is a non sequituur.

AN interpretation.

Not sure if you know this but the law has sides. 'Legal' people argue both. Both cannot be right.

So in every 'legal' argument, half the' legal' people are wrong. :)

Just because someone says they are legal scholars, does not make them right. Especially if they are wrong, and biased.

@vivariumvivariumsvivaria

Thank you, *@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus* - Shonagh Dillon's work looks very useful.

And pretty depressing.

Seriously? We are letting a bunch of lobbyists do crap research with no academic rigour of peer review -and then formulation policy. procedure and legislation on it?

Jesus wept.

Our legal and justice systems. Our NHS. Our Academy. Our lawmakers. Our political systems. Our civil service.

The harms that have flowed from all of this. The polarisation and the resurgence of misogyny. The peril in which these institutions have knowingly placed children and vulnerable populations.

All on the say so of lobbyists and research that was not subject to even cursory due diligence.

Look at this ESRC funded idiocy, for instance.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3913843-Future-of-legal-gender-and-mumsnet

[quote Ereshkigalangcleg]Plenty here for you to get stuck into.

legalfeminist.org.uk/[/quote]
This article simply says that changing rooms "should" be single sex, and make use of the exemption, it doesn't offer a differing interpretation of the law.

It even acknowledges that in another article, where "reasonable" refers to legitimate, proportionate, or in reference to the list of exceptions.

"As many readers will already know, the Equality Act 2010 provides for single sex services, and acknowledges that there will be times when it is reasonable for a service to exclude members of the opposite sex (para 27 Schedule 3) or to exclude on the basis of gender reassignment (para 28 Schedule 3). "

This is a great article on academic capture.

https://medium.com/@juliann*.vigo/how-to-stage-a-study-the-transgender-lobby-in-british-academia-f196f4f686f1

Why do you think she says that Dadjoke? She's a legal mind who disagrees with noted TRA Alex Sharpe that it's not possible to have single sex spaces, which is what you asked for. There are about fifty thousand threads here which have discussed the legal position around single sex spaces, sometimes TRAs have popped in to tell us we are wrong, but legal opinions vary, as pp noted. Do some reading.

@AlisonDonut

I'm offering an interpretation of the law from a legal scholar. What you've said is a non sequituur.

AN interpretation.

Not sure if you know this but the law has sides. 'Legal' people argue both. Both cannot be right.

So in every 'legal' argument, half the' legal' people are wrong. :)

Just because someone says they are legal scholars, does not make them right. Especially if they are wrong, and biased.

I've not seen any legal scholar dispute that to set up a single-sex space requires use of the exemptions in the EA2010, not even gender critical ones. If you have any interpretation to the contrary, do point me at them.

Woman's Plave acknowledges it;

"We are campaigning for the rights in the Equality Act to be upheld which rightfully includes the provision of single-sex exemptions where these are a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim. "

"Exemptions" mean inclusion is the default.

In fact, Women's Place is campaigning for the exemptions to be widened, not denying they exist.

womansplaceuk.org/2017/10/30/equality-act-2010-exemptions-should-be-retained-strengthened-and-extended/

Not sure if you know this but the law has sides. 'Legal' people argue both. Both cannot be right.

So in every 'legal' argument, half the' legal' people are wrong. :)

Just because someone says they are legal scholars, does not make them right. Especially if they are wrong, and biased.

Exactly. It's interesting how Dadjoke skipped over the posts about vile male abuse aimed at feminists last night on a thread about a male shouting abuse at another male, to push his pet ideas that we've all heard many times before. Typically patronising "I don't know why you're even bothering to object because you don't have any single sex spaces ever anyway." As if women have never considered the legal position before, taking legal advice is a complete novelty to us, and we will just say "oh, ok then, I see your point, we won't bother"

In fact, Women's Place is campaigning for the exemptions to be widened, not denying they exist.

Why don't you just say that women have no right to single sex spaces, after all trans organisations, Stonewall etc have all been actively lobbying to remove this right from women.

In my opinion, any bloke that campaigns/argues for males to access female single sex spaces needs their hard drive looking at, if you know what I mean.

Legal scholar, random bloke on mumsnet, any male really.

requires use of the exemptions in the EA2010

You don't have to have a special permit. Every women's toilet, changing room, dormitory uses the SSE. It doesn't need a fanfare, Because it's not about trans people, it's about men. It's not a special "keeping out trans people" exemption. Males without GRC are legally male.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Why do you think she says that Dadjoke? She's a legal mind who disagrees with noted TRA Alex Sharpe that it's not possible to have single sex spaces, which is what you asked for. There are about fifty thousand threads here which have discussed the legal position around single sex spaces, sometimes TRAs have popped in to tell us we are wrong, but legal opinions vary, as pp noted. Do some reading.

She is not disputing the law. She is suggesting that organisations make use of the exceptions permitted. My point was simply that it's exception-based, and the default is inclusion. Neither interpretation disputes that.

Sharpe does not say that it's not possible to have single-sex spaces, merely that there's a high bar, although it hasn't been tested. That's a point of dispute, I imagine.

I've read the GRA, the EA2010 and some legal interpretations. The article you pointed me at isn't a legal interpretation, it's advocacy which accepts the reality of the current law.

If you are willing, and you know of an article which disputes my postion that it's inclusion by default, with exemptions, I'd be grateful to read it. I completely understand if you can't be arsed.

It is, as I said, illuminating about this movement how little respect the woke men that support it have for this specific oppressed group, and how they seem to selectively understand what sex is when they want to dismiss, smear or take from people.

She is not disputing the law. She is suggesting that organisations make use of the exceptions permitted. My point was simply that it's exception-based, and the default is inclusion. Neither interpretation disputes that.

'Inclusion' means you have mixed sex toilets/changing rooms/rape counselling groups. If you have 'female changing rooms' etc then you are making use of the single sex exemptions If a transwoman can use a space then so can other men.