Brilliant News in The Metro

[AndAsIfByMagic]

I've looked but can't see another thread about this ruling.

Very good news.

metro.co.uk/2022/04/04/trans-people-can-be-excluded-from-single-sex-spaces-if-justifiable-16405328/

Organisations need to apply the guidance and cut all ties with Stonewall who have done nothing but lie to them.

This quote: 🙄

A Stonewall spokesman has blasted the guidance, saying it appears to contravene the core presumption of the Equality Act – inclusion – and shifts the focus onto reasons for excluding trans people.

‘This leaves more, not less confusion, and more, not less, risk of illegal discrimination.’

No you idiot. "Inclusion" is not the core presumption of the Equality Act.
It's core principle is... Ummmmm, Gosh it's a tricky one.....

And as for "illegal discrimination" no love, sorry what the guidance has done is clear up that it's not illegal to exclude TW from women only spaces as you have been wrongly telling everyone for the past decade.

I notice the strengthening of the message from MRAs that sex = gender, and therefore sex segregated actually legally means gender segregated. And re-assertion that gender reassignment is just that, and not sex-reassignment.
That it's EHRC trying to move the goalposts by using the term 'biological sex'.
That self-ID = 'gender reassignment'.

Revoke the GRA - it's a Trojan horse, being used to dismantle sex-based rights - blatantly & completely.

The Daily Mail had an article about it last night. It's really positive news.

That was a reasonable article from the Metro considering its usual imbalance.

Trans women could be excluded from emergency accommodation at domestic abuse refuges if feedback from female survivors ‘indicates they would feel uncomfortable sharing accommodation for reasons of trauma and safety’, the guidance says.

I haven’t been on the EHRC thread to clarify this, but is this not pressuring the women and making them ‘be kind’? Surely the women shouldn’t have to say they feel uncomfortable, it should just be a no.

The Metro story is weird. I don’t think the reporter understands the guidance.

It would likely be unlawful if a trans man is denied access to breast screening and told this service is provided for females only. Transmen are female and need breast screening if they haven’t had mastectomies. I’ve never heard of the NHS trying to deny this.

‘It would likely be unlawful if a trans man is denied access to breast screening and told this service is provided for females only.’

“Transmen are female and need breast screening if they haven’t had mastectomies. I’ve never heard of the NHS trying to deny this.”

Exactly. Nobody is trying to deny anyone services they need based on their sex. They're proposing excluding people sometimes from sexed services because they are not that sex. And that’s all.

But I think it’s good that these examples are reported because it shows, overall, the reasonableness of this understanding of the law.

I also got confused by the transman and breast screening, but actually it makes perfect sense when you think about it, they're not being confused.
If a transman shows up for a screening and is told by a HCP that they can't get one because it's not for men, that would be a case of discrimination based on transgender status. The comparator being other women.

I'd hope the NHS will wake up and extend this to "if a transman isn't called in for a cervical smear, they're being discriminated against compared to other women who are called in for a smear".

The TRAs have messed up healthcare for transpeople by demanding people can self select "male or female" on their medical records, resulting in transmen missing out on cervical or breast screening because they aren't called in, whereas transwomen with penises are . It's a health care crisis really.

I haven’t been on the EHRC thread to clarify this, but is this not pressuring the women and making them ‘be kind’? Surely the women shouldn’t have to say they feel uncomfortable, it should just be a no.

The guidance is aimed at service providers who do far have been following "Stonewall law" and have been frightened to exclude TW for fear of illegal discrimination.

Women in refuges and other services have already been saying they're uncomfortable about TW being there, and fgs many have been actually raped by men who claim womanly genders, (I can think of 3 awful cases just off the top of my head), yet still the services continue to host these people despite actual harm being caused because they have been indoctrinated with crap.

This guidance lays it out that service providers can in fact legally exclude TW, whereas before they actually thought they had to (thank you Stonewall).

So it's a huge improvement and gives room for common sense. Finally.

A Stonewall spokesman has blasted the guidance, saying it appears to contravene the core presumption of the Equality Act – inclusion – and shifts the focus onto reasons for excluding trans people.

Stonewall law. It's not about inclusion just of men! It's about inclusion of women too - in their own spaces!!

And all those examples, or most of them, were already in the equality act - in the guidance notes. It's nothing new. It's that the spin stonewall tried to put on it, has been unspun.

‘The examples appear to encourage blanket bans, rather than by a case-by-case decision making, and cover restricting access to day to day settings like bathrooms and gym classes, which is extraordinary’, he said.

Nope. Completely normal.

They really want to push a case-by-case basis, don't they.

There's no point asking how the hell they think people are going to decide on what basis someone should be admitted, when they're standing right there in front of them.

They know full well what would happen. And they absolutely want it to.

Again, forcing and bullying people into their desired outcome.

Great news about the guidance released yesterday but am eye rolling at some of the headlines. The Metro one linked here could be:
Women are legally allowed to maintain single sex spaces

And why are they ALL about tw? I’ve yet to see a headline proclaiming
‘Transmen legally allowed to be excluded from male-only spaces’.

The Times has one saying ‘transwomen can be barred from same-sex spaces’. Say what? Is it just me or is that implying that transwomen are same sex as women?

Good to see a story like this in the Metro. I hope it's in the print edition too.

On a side issue, what on earth does the banner in the photo mean -"Fight for trans rights the way we fought for yours"? Who is that addressed to, and what rights are these (mostly very young) people claiming to have fought for?

I keep hoping for a new dawn. Could this be it?

Please let’s repeal the GRA and get rid of the legal fiction that is the GRC. There is no reason for any of it and would make things much clearer for everyone. This is not denying healthcare to anyone that needs it.

@AndAsIfByMagic

I keep hoping for a new dawn. Could this be it?

It is. Absolutely.

I would be very vary of the Metro because they're not too far away from being PinkNews levels of bias, they hire a trans-activist to write weekly biased stories and their moderators do not like any GC views.