Monroe Bergdorf's curious interpretation of the Equality Act

[ArabellaScott]

www.instagram.com/p/Cor5cDRoCex/

'“There’s so much misinformation going around about trans people being in women only spaces, when legally, we’ve been allowed to use whatever spaces are in alignment with our gender identity since 2010 with the Equality Act. The talking points don’t reflect the law.”

Monroe seems to proves Monroeself's own point in that last sentence.

Ah yes, Munroe is a disciple of Stonewall Law. Doesn't bear any resemblance to the actual law.

Legally the EA2010 didn't really change the situation. There never has been any law dictating which space each sex uses. The EA2010 clarified that we are legally allowed to bar each sex from entering the other sex's spaces (services, etc) under certain circumstances.

What changed everything was the GRA. The GRA abused the social contract that was supported by the laws around public decency. Before the GRR males in women's spaces would have been considered to be abusing public decency and committing indecent exposure if they were undressed. The GRA changed all that.

Munroe has got it all arse about.

From the NSPCC via rubberwankman to a spell in obscurity to a return as equality law "expert". Whodathunkit

And entitled to boot.

Most vulnerable ? my arse.

I thought Munroe had gone quiet for a while. It seems Munroe has a book out, an autobiography, which was supported in The Guardian by an extraordinarily sycophantic interview by Simon Hattenstone. I hope Munroe will not be bring out any law books, based on the statements here.

For a book that had such a breathtaking advance sum, the publisher don't look like they've put much effort into the cover, or even publicity.

No reviews quoted? Only some very vague quotes on Bergdorf theyself, not attributed to any actual named people.

No free copies sent out? Usually this would all have been happening for months prior to release.

And not a single customer review.

Odd.

www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B08CZ9P971/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0

“… increasingly difficult from health care to mental health to, you know, access and housing and employment and homelessness. Theres so many issues that the trans community are facing but none of it gets any airtime because its constantly going around the same old things which are silly” then witters about toilets on planes and staright into “there’s no statistics to say that transwomen are a threat to anybody yet as we have seen this week, you know, trans people are at risk and are in danger and, you know, paying with our lives”

So what exactly are the issues around 'health care to mental health to access and housing and employment and homelessness’ that are different from everyone else? As this person didn’t elaborate on why exactly transpeople are so oppressed and marginalised in all these areas.

What do those things have to do with men using the women’s toilets?

Has this person not seen the news and the information/statistics re transwomen sex offenders? As I’m fairly sure there is evidence to show that transwomen offend in the same way men do.

What exactly is this risk and danger that looms like a thunder cloud over the heads of every single transperson? What are they experiencing that is so awful? How do they know its transphobia and not just life?

And lastly using a child’s murder to play top trumps is rather distasteful.

Does this person know that other children have been murdered in the past few weeks as well? Or do they not matter?

What women are talking about is "just very silly" is it Bergdorf?

I am being told I'm "just very silly" by someone drastically surgically altered and dressed up as Barbie doll speaking with a man's voice.

You Bergdorf, are extremely silly.

So this has sent me back to actually read the Equality Act (which I should have done long ago).

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/2
7 Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—

(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;

(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.

Doesn't this wording mean that a person who is NOT "changing physiological or other attributes of sex" is not covered by the legislation?

Ie if one merely declares oneself a different sex but makes no physiological changes to the body, then one does not have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment? And therefore does not have the protection of the Equality Act... (But does of course still have all normal legal accorded to the general population.)

The grey area here being "other attributes of sex". But well worth testing in court?

Sorry, this might have been thrashed out on FWR before, but I've missed it.

But on this basis, I think people who refer to themselves as a particular gender but have made no physiological attempt to change sex simply don't have the protection of this section of the Equality Act.

No need even to move to the next stage where discrimination is lawful if it is a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". They're simply not covered.

I'm pondering on the "other attributes of sex". It's possible that these might, at the time of writing the Act, have been interpreted as, eg using titles such as "Mr" / "Miss" or pronouns "he" / "she" / "them" / "xe"

But these are actually gender not sex. By very energetically hiving off gender from sex and introducing multiple genders, non-binariness, swithering between genders, etc, the gender activists have now removed the possibility of fudging that.

So (as far as I can see – but I might well have missed something) we're left with only physiological change to define "reassigning the person's sex".

There is absolutely no such thing as a toilet which is in alignment with your gender identity, Monroe.

That's why they have urinals in the men's and sanitary bins in the women's.

@Boiledbeetle

Has this person not seen the news and the information/statistics re transwomen sex offenders? As I’m fairly sure there is evidence to show that transwomen offend in the same way men do.

Actually the recent analysis of census date by Sex Matters indicated TW commit sexual offences at 5 times the rate of men. And 500-odd times the rate of women.

I guess Monroe chooses to ignore this.

I don’t think Munro gives a shiny sh…t about any one else, including other transgender people . I’m not even sure M knows that trans men exist, still less cares about any problems or prejudice they might encounter. It’s all just men in female guise and much more importantly Munroeself, and how the world has mistreated M by not making M the centre of everyone else’s universe.

I am not convinced this book is going to be a bestseller, which will doubtless be attributed to transphobia, prejudice etc. The Emperor Nero used to visit cities which were holding literary and musical festivals, and insist ( with assistance of the Roman army) that he won every contest. I think he is probably one of Munroes role models.

All they need to do to claim the PC of gender reassignment is to say that they are 'proposing to undergo...a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.'

<a class="break-all" href="http://go.mumsnet.com/?xs=1&id=470X1554755&url=www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7" target="_blank">https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7

In other words, Joe Bloggs doesn't have to do diddly squat in order to claim the right to colonise women's spaces.

Still doesn't mean he's changed sex.

Still doesn't mean he can't be excluded from these spaces - if providers would grow a bit of backbone.

It's barely managed to scrape into the top 5000 books with a trad publisher behind it & they've tried to put it in some pretty sludgy categories for kindle to improve it's poor ranking.

I suppose at £8.99 for a 152 page kindle book by a nobody, you can't expect to sell well though.
Who would pay £13+ for what is basically a novella? (listed as 224 pages in hardback. Wonder what it's padded out with to get those extra 72 pages?)

I see there are already second hand copies available, which is fairly impressive for a book that only came out 3 days ago.

Doesn't mean any man is wanted or welcome in womens spaces though.

4,712 in Kindle Store

1 in Social Activist Biographies & Memoirs

2 in Blues Musician Biographies

14 in Sex

Bergdorf is a blues musician?

Identifies as one

OK.

Always wondered how the Laurie Penny and "Grace" Lavery books sold. They seemed to disappear pretty quickly.

I thought last Saturday's Guardian weekend magazine cover beautifully demonstrated how out of touch The Guardian is.