“Is it illegal to exclude males where females are naked? The current law isn’t clear.

[ScrollingLeaves]

•   Currently there is confusion in the Equality Act over whether providers of sports, hospitals, changing rooms, shared hostels and over-night sleeper trains, are allowed to keep men out of women’s provision
  

•   This means many services for women are scared to protect women from male predators, because they are worried they will be breaking the law
  

•   right now, women and girls have no guarantee that ‘single sex’ means truly single sex
  

•   Women and girls have already been sexually assaulted and raped in single sex hospital wards, prisons and toilets by men
  

Is it illegal to exclude men where women are naked?

The current law isn’t clear.

Many of us have just recently become aware of this vagueness in the law, but meanwhile have been noticing for some time how many women and girl’s sex based spaces have been removed. We are trying to ensure steps are taken to change this.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

Since TRAs will take legal action at the drop of a hat (looking at you idiot at a bus stop), this means your average rape crisis centre, gym or lesbian knitting circle is under a lot of pressure

well it's down to the courts to tell them to bog off

Yes, JKR 💜🤍💚✨

One of the most egregious examples is this mess where a woman wS raped in hospital but the police were told no males were there. A male had been there. But the hospital was taking the line that Trans Women Are Women so did not even think they were lying to the police.
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4507790-Hospital-told-police-patient-not-raped-because-attacker-transgender

Look here everyone as a start to trying to clear up the misunderstandings
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

I have been following Michael Foran and one case that he keeps bringing up is Sarah’s about the Rape Crisis Centre. My understanding is that this is being brought as a case of indirect discrimination based on sex. Obviously this is slightly different as she is asking for an additional service rather than removing other services but in some way it may bring some case law, on SSS (positive or negative) dependant on the result.

I opened this link on here a few months ago and was absolutely disgusted and everyone I show it to has been too. I don’t have twitter but if anyone fancied adding the link (or whatever it’s called) to JKR’s tweet it can’t hurt.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/misogynist-abusive-men-openly-mocking

WomanOfSteel · Today 16:12
I opened this link on here a few months ago and was absolutely disgusted and everyone I show it to has been too. I don’t have twitter but if anyone fancied adding the link (or whatever it’s called) to JKR’s tweet it can’t hurt
grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/misogynist-abusive-men-openly-mocking

It is disgusting. Those are instances of women’s toilets being used by males who say they are women, just for a thrill.
How can anyone think allowing this access is all right?

Please see people trying to clarify the law so people are encouraged not to be afraid of discrimination litigation.
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

As if a busy ward nurse has the time or the available data to fully risk assess each individual patient. And then they would have to be the one saying "I've risk assessed you and don't think it's safe to put you on the women's ward" and then be the one to face any repercussions.

Quite. I used to wonder how these risk assessments would work - do they ask a male patient who requests to go into a female ward if he has any rape convictions, or if he intends to maintain appropriate boundaries when with vulnerable women, or ask him if he likes getting his willy out in front of people (seemingly a popular activity among certain patients placed on female wards according to some nurses).

It turns out that none of these considerations are addressed and if the NHS ‘risk assessments’ are anything like the Prison Service rx, the assessment is only on the risk to that individual patient from other patients. No consideration of women’s feelings, religious needs or safety.

Considering that Baroness Nicholson is dealing with over 100 cases of some sort of sexual harassment resulting directly from placing male born trans people on female wards and there have been several convictions and very serious allegations, and it is effectively unlawful according to the 2019 Single Sex Accommodation specification I think we need to get this sorted.

Its like with prisons: the only interest in risk is to the males. The females in the situation aren't regarded in any way as equally human.

There are many appropriate ways to meet the needs of males. None of them involve removing privacy, dignity, equality and humanity from females.

That case was utterly ridiculous.

Yes, concern about this person being in a state of undress in the women's changing rooms WAS connected to the fact that they are a transgender woman, because a transgender woman is in fact a man, and women were concerned about their presence in the women's changing rooms for the same reason they would be concerned about any other man being in the women's changing rooms.

No, there wouldn't have been the same concerns about a "cisgender" (ugh) woman in the women's changing rooms, given that they are the people the women's changing rooms are actually for.

And don't even get me started on it being unlawful to exclude a man with a GRC saying he is a woman from women's single sex spaces, but also unlawful to ask someone if they have a GRC. That just means you can't exclude any man from women's spaces in case he has a GRC, which you're not allowed to ask about.

Surely this is what the list of vexatious litigants is for.

RosaBonheur Today 17:39
I agree, especially with this which is sheer Catch22 madness.

And don't even get me started on it being unlawful to exclude a man with a GRC saying he is a woman from women's single sex spaces, but also unlawful to ask someone if they have a GRC. That just means you can't exclude any man from women's spaces in case he has a GRC, which you're not allowed to ask about.

Looking at this painting by your namesake, it is inconceivable to think that people really no longer know that “sex” means male or female, and that this is a biological state of being throughout nature.

(And that children are being taught this.)

But we are where we are.

For this reason let’s try to re-establish reality: JK Rowling tweeted this
m.youtube.com/watch?v=UsvQQFx-dRI
or you can see here
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

Sorry, correction: children are being taught that sex is any gender. See Isle of Man 73 genders. Or @Vebrithien’s thread about gender not sex at her daughters primary school www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4713725-please-help-gender-not-sex-on-a-school-protected-characteristics-poster-just-spoken-to-the-head

Yes, they're being taught that there are 73 genders, but not what a gender actually is. That's because a gender isn't anything other than a set of stereotypes.

The cynic in me wonders whether the people pushing this agenda are deliberately targeting children, because if they can get an entire generation of young people to not really understand what a man or a woman is, or what sex is and the fact that humans can't change sex, 30 years from now they'll have no opposition to their batshit ideas because everyone under that age will have been indoctrinated pretty much from birth. Like how the children in Nineteen Eighty Four were the most zealous, and denounced their own parents to Big Brother for committing thought crimes. If you capture the youth, you win the war.

But then surely this is a bridge too far? This generation of children who believe in 73 genders will still need to figure out whether they are male or female if they ever want to have kids of their own. At some point reality has to prevail.

It’s the one that steals sanitary towels to take home and wank over that makes me want to spew.

This keeps coming up and as others dont mind repeating so will I.

There is clear guidance, but long before the issue of trans women came up, organisations including the NHS who have the right to say to preserve women's dignity we will have single sex wards, stopped doing it. That was probably as much to do with cuts to funding. But underlying that is that decision makers are nearly always men, and simply do not take into account that how they view what women might want, let alone need, create policy for organisations.

So (and I've pasted this into other threads but wont do this here, as it can be found on the EHRC website) there are loads of concrete examples of why women should have single sex spaces, and it isn't just about women who are victims of male violence.

Is there any way we could create post where all this is laid out, and rather than start endless threads asking the same quesiton that get the same responses, we move on from there.

ie in one case we have organisations who have no intereste in thinking about women's needs, so changes to the EA etc., will make no difference because they use their own value ie male judgements.

the other case is trans women, and again it is possible to exclude trans women, or in the instances of toilets provide a gender neutral toilet rather than expect women to accommodate them. So this again is probably as much to do with managers who dont care, dont want to find the money, but more likely to have come under the Stonewall brainwashing.

So the issue is if TRAs are happy to challenge all and sundry demanding that they are given inclusive services, isn't the question why we arent similarly challenging institutions? No amount of tinkering with the law is going to over come social attitudes, which unfortunately at the moment the TRAs are winning.

And where is the protection for females, with the protected characteristic of biological sex and the statistically proven risk of attack, rape, murder by males?

NurseCranesRolodex· Today 19:28
+And where is the protection for females, with the protected characteristic of biological sex and the statistically proven risk of attack, rape, murder by males?*

“NurseCranesRolodex

The reason for what you see in the link below, is to ask the Government to literally add the word biology to the Equality Act protected characteristic “Sex”, because although it should already be apparent that sex is biological from the definition in the act - that woman and man mean a female of any age and a male of any age - thirteen years of gender ideology and lobby groups promoting Orwellian language, mean people are not clear about this and think a gender in their mind counts as sex.

It doesn’t help that the Gender Recognition Act mixes between sex and gender so you can’t be sure what they are talking about.

The GRA also says a person has changed their sex even though that isn’t possible.
Lady Haldane ruled a person with a GRC has the same rights the biological sex they say they are.

Then the Gender Reassignment ( anyone can say they are this) is also an Equality Act protected characteristic and can be taken to mean a GRC, especially as you aren’t allowed to ask someone to see the certificate.

So the protections that the Equality Act provides for biological sex are no longer necessarily recognised.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

Already signed. Fingers crossed for success Good old JKR as usual we can rely on her ❤️

And don't even get me started on it being unlawful to exclude a man with a GRC saying he is a woman from women's single sex spaces, but also unlawful to ask someone if they have a GRC. That just means you can't exclude any man from women's spaces in case he has a GRC, which you're not allowed to ask about.

Thats the crux of the problem. Its pointless making it legal to exclude anyone with a GRC if you aren't allowed to check if they have one.

I suspect the real reason they don't want to debate the petition is that the only way to clarify and uphold the EA is to stop people being able to change the legal sex marker on a birth certificate, passport or other official documents.

I suspect the real reason they don't want to debate the petition is that the only way to clarify and uphold the EA is to stop people being able to change the legal sex marker on a birth certificate, passport or other official documents.

If the Equality Act spells out biological sex by literally writing the word into the Equality Act ( rather than assuming it is understood from ‘male’ and ‘female’) the GRA, which does not say biological sex, would not be able to match it.

So there would be some sort of differentiation (as was the original intention).
m.youtube.com/watch?v=UsvQQFx-dRI

@I@IwantToRetire Yesterday 19:26
This keeps coming up and as others dont mind repeating so will I.

There is clear guidance, but long before the issue of trans women came up, organisations including the NHS who have the right to say to preserve women's dignity we will have single sex wards, stopped doing it. That was probably as much to do with cuts to funding. But underlying that is that decision makers are nearly always men, and simply do not take into account that how they view what women might want, let alone need, create policy for organisations.

So (and I've pasted this into other threads but wont do this here, as it can be found on the EHRC website) there are loads of concrete examples of why women should have single sex spaces, and it isn't just about women who are victims of male violence.

*Is there any way we could create post where all this is laid out, and rather than start endless threads asking the same quesiton that get the same responses, we move on from there.

ie in one case we have organisations who have no intereste in thinking about women's needs, so changes to the EA etc., will make no difference because they use their own value ie male judgements.

the other case is trans women, and again it is possible to exclude trans women, or in the instances of toilets provide a gender neutral toilet rather than expect women to accommodate them. So this again is probably as much to do with managers who dont care, dont want to find the money, but more likely to have come under the Stonewall brainwashing.

So the issue is if TRAs are happy to challenge all and sundry demanding that they are given inclusive services, isn't the question why we arent similarly challenging institutions? No amount of tinkering with the law is going to over come social attitudes, which unfortunately at the moment the TRAs are winning.

I think you make excellent points. This would separate and highlight the issues.

To me it seems the Government should actually legislate positively to enshrine certain sex based provisions/rights so no-one had to argue for them each time, but perhaps that would never happen.

This petition to at least clarify what ‘sex’ means, though, is a start to redressing some balance in the law as it stands; and as much as anything it would also help to undo no little entirely intentional language erosion.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=UsvQQFx-dRI
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

Well I don't think people should be allowed to have a legal fiction on their official documents.

They keep telling us that sex is not the same as gender.

Fine.

So why do you need to change your sex on your birth certificate, passport or medical records?

You haven't changed your sex, you've changed your gender, which is imaginary and not actually recorded anywhere because it's not relevant to anything.

Why shouldn't it be illegal for male people to be allowed to access non consenting women when they're naked? 🤔

For the same reason that genital mutilation isn't illegal when the reason for it is "because gender nonsense".

Yes, but why shouldn't it be illegal for male people to have facilitated access to non consenting female people?

How is that justifiable? Do male people have a right to female bodies? An entitlement to them and to access that is greater than female consent? Are males given unique and higher power in law to use female people in ways that is sex based? What need could male people possibly have to be given legal access to naked females? And what kind of a male person would want this and enforce said right over non consenting females to use them in this way? Doesn't the kind of male who would do this to a female demonstrate in a nutshell why such a law should be in place?

The second you start to unpack it, it's horrific.

Absolutely, I agree with you 100%.

But as soon as someone asserts their "gender identity", everything else, including basic safeguarding and the rights of all other groups, assumes secondary importance for some reason.