Liz Truss letter to EHRC; spot the contradiction

[InTheCanteen]

The Conservative leadership election is giving women some opportunities to draw out the candidates on single sex spaces, services, sports and opportunities.

Frankly, I'm surprised this letter from February hasn't been more widely publicised up until now. I do hope Liz Truss can come up with a clear response: has she since changed her mind? Can she explain to us what she means by 'transgender people'?

twitter.com/TheAttagirls/status/1555514182493245445?s=20&t=mK96bvctJrsp2umZYK5r1A

Retweeted by Helen Joyce too.

@ZuttZeVootEeeVo

Some things would be a case of overturning anti-discrimination law. I actually agree that there shouldn’t be a problem with saying ‘because we want to’ when arranging an activity with other women. But that is separate from what would be (currently) legal in an institution.

@Pieceofpurplesky

I hope they do read it.

So do I. But I still stick to the fact the woman will say anything (as will Sunak).

@Pieceofpurplesky

Truss has earned my faith on this. Or as much as a politician can! We don’t have GRA reform, don’t have legislation on trans conversion therapy, we have the end of childhood transition on its way.

Imagine Starmer winning in 2024 (he might) with no Truss.

It was written by Liz Truss.

Why would you expect it to make sense?

Very often, these are women groups as much as knitting groups. Only we never had to explicitly announce the reasons why women groups are important.

There's nothing wrong with having knitting groups, but when the group is named women's knitting group, it's often for a reason.

Agree. Anyone trying to invoke an anti discrimination law to barge their way into a women's knitting group who patently don't want them there is deeply sinister and can't possibly be thought to be doing so for innocuous reasons.
I don't like the "Sure it's only knitting, what harm can it do?" mind set at all, tbh.
It's the thing end of the wedge.

It also shows the utter disregard for the women in that group, why they're there, what matters to them about that group, what it provides for them - to the one raising Cain to get in there it's all irrelevant.

It's purely about 'there is a boundary'. And the boundary and by extension that group and those females must be owned and controlled.

There is no desire to 'join' and 'be part of', only a desire to exert the power and entitlement that frankly comes from being male. It's pure sexism. And it's based entirely on binary sex based thinking.

And yet, the law is what it is and I suspect a knitting group that excluded transwomen (if held in a public venue) would fail at the ‘proportionate’ hurdle of the Equality Act single sex provision. I don’t think that’s how it should be - I think there’s legitimacy in women wanting to meet as women, for no other reason than that they want to exclude males, who (sorry to say) are sometimes guilty of taking up more space than women.

But the counter to that might be ‘Would it be okay to have a whites-only knitting group’?

I would find that abhorrent. But I wouldn’t find it abhorrent for people to have a knitting group for people with disabilities, and exclude the able-bodied, for example.

Achillestoes the comparison there wouldn't be with a women's group and a group for white people, surely, but with a women's group and a group for BAME people, etc.
Restricting access to the group is to support a set of sometimes disadvantaged people.

@Bindayagain

I nearly agree. But actually I think a men’s only knitting group would be fine as well. I think it’s about specific need, not necessarily disadvantage as such. Is there a legitimate reason for the exclusion? That’s all that needs to be asked.

Actually that's a great point! Men would likely feel more comfortable knitting in a group with other men.
I think it would be easier to justify a women's only car maintenance group, or weight lifting etc - ie something that women traditionally might be excluded from.
Though there will also be women who will be excluded (either because it makes them uncomfortable or because men in their life demand it) from a mixed sex group.

You can imagine how much attention a sole man in a knitting group would get, that would put me off entirely.

‘You can imagine how much attention a sole man in a knitting group would get, that would put me off entirely.’

Yes. I think part of it is about being able to be yourself entirely in the element of your character that is under discussion. So, sometimes those with disabilities want to congregate away from the gaze of those who do not live with disabilities. Men want to congregate away from the gaze of women. Transwomen (or people who are transitioning or have transitioned) may want to congregate away from the gaze of those who are happy living in their sexed bodies.

Firstly, I think we all need to chill out about that. It’s normal. Secondly, people can’t ‘identify’ into those groups. Not really. They might identify with them, but that’s not the same.

It is also the excluding type of 'inclusion'.

There are likely to be female type women who cannot access a knitting group or any other kind of group once it has become mixed sex to 'include' a male person. And so the group excludes them.

That isn't inclusion. That's just a demand to value male people more highly than female people. There's another term for that, and it isn't 'inclusive'.

As usual, the word is merely used for its manipulative power over others in getting what is wanted, there is no actual committment to the value the word represents.

@Artichokeleaves

But we mustn’t centre or amplify the voices of those disgusting Karens who can’t reframe their trauma.

I'm afraid my response to 'reframe your trauma' (so that your needs cease to present a boundary to the freedom of male people to have what they want) is - you first.

Reframe the trauma around using male spaces.
Reframe the trauma around misgendering.

Provided with a good example perhaps female people may wish to consider participating too.

Bit like women trying to barge their way into men only golf clubs really.

Why shouldn't men play golf in peace?

No reason at all. Do many women do this?

Yes.

Really?! Shame on them.

‘Bit like women trying to barge their way into men only golf clubs really. Why shouldn't men play golf in peace?’

This is where proportionality comes into things. I don’t see why men can’t have an men’s only golf gathering, but I think it should be reasonably restricted, say to a time of the month.

Why? There are mixed courses available, why can't they have one to themselves? Mixed sex anything changes the dynamic considerably, and some people just prefer not to.
Unless men or women are prevented from doing an activity full stop by being excluded from a sport (or whatever) in it's entirety, I genuinely don't see the issue .
There have always been Gentleman's Clubs and Women's Guilds. Where's the harm?
Sometimes demands for "equality" for it's own sake can be quite tedious. If you want mixed sex, find somewhere that is, and is happy to be, mixed sex.

‘Why? There are mixed courses available, why can't they have one to themselves?’

I just don’t think it’s proportionate for a whole amenity to be reserved for one (either) sex. Like I agree with women’s knitting groups in council buildings, but not whole council buildings that never admit men.

Fair enough, we'll have to agree to disagree. Once one sex isn't disproportionately catered to, I see no issue with the right to choose who you spend time with.

No, not who you spend time with. I think a privately owned club that doesn’t take money for profit can choose who it admits. That’s freedom of association.