Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

EA petition EHRC are in favour of reviewing the definition of sex

222 replies

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 04/04/2023 15:12

Sex Matters update

The petition worked. The full letter from the EHRC is worth reading.

https://twitter.com/sexmattersorg/status/1643236702322847745?s=46&t=4ig9oxXX7RdmDKwsMsuh1Q

OP posts:
Thread gallery
12
ScrollingLeaves · 07/04/2023 16:50

*Foreversearch +· Today 15:54
For example I have seen Lady Haldane’s judgement interpreted as meaning anyone who has gone through gender reassignment is included in legal sex rather than the accurate, people with a GRC are included in legal sex - a very big difference.

In practice, this is exactly what has been happening though.

Foreversearch · 07/04/2023 17:37

@ScrollingLeaves oh I know, and that is a big part of the problem.

rabbitwoman · 07/04/2023 19:52

here is one thing i am not entirely clear on - you CAN exclude trans women from women's spaces and trans men from male spaces on the basis of sex but many places have chosen not to, probably because they don't want to face discrimination lawsuits. Well, now that has been clarified many places CAN exclude trans folk if they wish, but they still don't have to.

so for instance - there are probably about six gyms within walking distance of me. Surely it would be fine - sensible even - if half of them were trans INCLUSIVE and the other half trans EXCLUSIVE and let people chose. There would be lots of choice - if it was important for women to have women only changing rooms - and toilets and classes if need be - then they can join the gyms that offer that service and everyone else can join the others. doesn't this law allow for that? With the added bonus that now women can chose places that will be able to guarantee them the spaces they want and need?

I understand and have plenty of sympathy for the perfectly decent trans folk who feel as though their life has now been limited, but surely there will now be quite a lucrative reason for places to taylor their provision for them AND allow women to organise and undress in places without men?

or have i got this wrong?

ScrollingLeaves · 07/04/2023 20:06

I agree rabbutwoman.

Happylittlechicken · 07/04/2023 20:08

rabbitwoman · 07/04/2023 19:52

here is one thing i am not entirely clear on - you CAN exclude trans women from women's spaces and trans men from male spaces on the basis of sex but many places have chosen not to, probably because they don't want to face discrimination lawsuits. Well, now that has been clarified many places CAN exclude trans folk if they wish, but they still don't have to.

so for instance - there are probably about six gyms within walking distance of me. Surely it would be fine - sensible even - if half of them were trans INCLUSIVE and the other half trans EXCLUSIVE and let people chose. There would be lots of choice - if it was important for women to have women only changing rooms - and toilets and classes if need be - then they can join the gyms that offer that service and everyone else can join the others. doesn't this law allow for that? With the added bonus that now women can chose places that will be able to guarantee them the spaces they want and need?

I understand and have plenty of sympathy for the perfectly decent trans folk who feel as though their life has now been limited, but surely there will now be quite a lucrative reason for places to taylor their provision for them AND allow women to organise and undress in places without men?

or have i got this wrong?

That is a perfect solution. Everyone has somewhere to go, no one is excluded so it’s a win win. It’s what women have been pushing for for years, to be told “that’s transphobic” and that males with a trans identity would still us the women only one, it’s what needs to happen though.

nilsmousehammer · 07/04/2023 21:46

Happylittlechicken · 07/04/2023 20:08

That is a perfect solution. Everyone has somewhere to go, no one is excluded so it’s a win win. It’s what women have been pushing for for years, to be told “that’s transphobic” and that males with a trans identity would still us the women only one, it’s what needs to happen though.

Show quote history

This. And refuges, some of which are mixed sex women's, and some of which are female only. Consenting women only please, no women excluded.

ScrollingLeaves · 07/04/2023 23:07

The petition to commit to not amending the Equality Acts definition if sex has had nearly 40,000 signatures in 24 hours.

rabbitwoman · 08/04/2023 06:59

ScrollingLeaves · 07/04/2023 23:07

The petition to commit to not amending the Equality Acts definition if sex has had nearly 40,000 signatures in 24 hours.

Good for them. We have used exactly the same democratic process tone heard and I am sure an equal and fair debate will follow and provide solutions.

Do bear in mind that unless they are engaged and informed on this subject, so many people STILL don't really understand the implications. There are still plenty of people who don't realise that this will take away their rights to same sex spaces, and who don't understand how many men will be willing to say they're women for nefarious reasons.

rabbitwoman · 08/04/2023 07:06

A great example is the comedian Suzie Ruffle - so very committed to insisting trans women are women and of no threat to her.

One clip I have seen of her comedy is where she goes for a smear test. The punchline is that they ask her about contraception - she's a lesbian, she says, she doesn't need contraception, she says, to howls of laughter from the audience.

So Suzie, despite being a staunch trans ally, obviously never anticipates ever actually sleeping with one. Is she even aware that makes her a sexual racist? Does she even realise she is giving away the right to her very identity, the right to lesbian spaces without men, is she aware this makes her a genital fetishist?

Happylittlechicken · 08/04/2023 07:12

Ah but you see. @rabbitwoman , what she means is “transwomen are women apart from for relationship purposes, or if them being women affects me”. I think the saying is “ally in the streets, transphobe in the sheets”. Same with Owen jones, Tom Daley etc.

rabbitwoman · 08/04/2023 07:23

I do think @Happylittlechicken that a, massive problem with suzie and many others, is they don't understand that removing this protection from the equalities act takes away their choice.

I have shown my friends and family pictures of barbie kardashian, Karen white etc and been told, yeah, but they aren't trans women.

They don't realise, they don't get to chose. They will have no way of asserting boundaries.

Half of me almost, out of spite, wants to stop all this fighting and arguing and let them get their way. It would serves them right. But I can't, in all good faith, let them sleepwalk into their own oppression......

ResisterRex · 08/04/2023 07:25

Times letters page (scroll down) has a joint letter from quite a number of members of the Lords:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/241455aa-d567-11ed-a308-364551a39b53?shareToken=9fbf704959b65d767f38b6b560738797

ResisterRex · 08/04/2023 07:28

Interview with Baroness Falkner

Baroness Falkner: ‘It’s distressing to be called transphobic scum’

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/5c10268c-d553-11ed-a308-364551a39b53?shareToken=a57251c5992deb2211afe000dd2bad1d

Slothtoes · 08/04/2023 07:35

That’s a beautifully clear article by Dr Foran. Academics not campaigning just illuminating current public policy concerns is exactly where they are needed. Perfect. Thanks for sharing. Love the clear response to pile on too. Keep going!

nilsmousehammer · 08/04/2023 09:18

Baroness Falkner being very clear there.

There should be a range of provisions, including single sex meaning on the basis of biology AND trans inclusive spaces. In schools. Hospital wards.

It does not mean forcing trans people to use spaces and services that are sex based in which they would be uncomfortable.

It does mean that male people will need to accept that there are spaces for biological women that are only for biological women, and which cannot be identified into.

Answers that work for everyone. Not a zero sum game. That's what most women here on MN have wanted from the start.

nilsmousehammer · 08/04/2023 09:20

This may also draw the real sticking point into the public eye:

The issue is not to have accessible spaces and freedom to transition.

The issue is that biological women must be permitted absolutely nothing of their own, including boundaries.

RedToothBrush · 08/04/2023 10:19

MarshaBradyo · 07/04/2023 14:23

If this goes through is the GRC basically defunct?

A trans person made this claim earlier on radio

No it's not.

It means for the purposes of most general situations you can't discriminate on the basis of being trans. It means a transwomen would have to be treated like a women in all situations bar the exemptions. I think the problem lies with how many transwomen only want a GRC for the exemptions. Which never existed in law as rights - it was stonewall who created this idea that they did and then bullied women into 'being kind' about it.

Self ID is really the thing undermining the GRC in my opinion. The drive for it pushes those who are committed to their life choices into a position where they are effectively outnumbered by 'daytrippers' with a different agenda. People who want the privileged special status, but can either grow out of it or get the advantages of being a bloke on Tuesdays still.

What's really fascinating to see written down is how a GRC only benefits males in practice if legal sex rather than biological sex matters. It's not in the legal interests of transmen to get one because of the rights it would effectively remove. So whilst Stonewall are heavily pushing the narrative about legal sex being more important, they effectively are by definition throwing transmen under the bus without thought.

It would be much better if an organisation group that advocates for transpeople actually looked at the legal ramifications and looked at where transwomen might need specific protections for their own class and where transmen might need specific protections for theirs. Instead we get this unholy mess of transwomen trying to remove the rights of women AND transmen and saying that this isn't problematic or biologically sexist in anyway without any irony at all.

Thelnebriati · 08/04/2023 10:23

Yes, the GRA has a disproportionately negative effect on the legal rights of two groups; gay people and women (including trans men).

nilsmousehammer · 08/04/2023 11:14

The EquAct does and should fully protect the legal equality of transitioners. Employment law, pay, discrimination, all of it.

The change will just require that biological sex exists, people can group by it and restrict a space specifically by sex to ensure the equality and rights of those people of that sex. Homosexual people can be homosexual. Women who cannot access mixed sex spaces will have accessible spaces. Single sex wards and facilities and same sex health care is protected for those who want and need it.

The issue will be the distress for some that there is a difference identified in law on sex not identity, and that there will be limits on spaces and access for biological males. I sympathise, I truly do. But wanting to deprive those people of that sex from their rights, access, equality and needs being met in order to reduce your own dysphoria? Is not ok. Equality law has to work for all.

And the issue for a few males, who have been abusing this access and power over women, is that the door to continuing to enjoy themselves exploiting the situation will be closed. I'd have to question why anyone would have a problem with this.

WeeBisom · 08/04/2023 11:18

I see some TRAS on Twitter crowing that they have 100k signatures to not clarify the equality act, and that means that trans rights is more popular blah blah blah. And meanwhile I’m sitting here very pleased that both sides are going to be thrashed out in a debate and we are finally going to hear their definition of “sex”, and the advantages of that definition compared to “biological sex”.

RedToothBrush · 08/04/2023 11:50

WeeBisom · 08/04/2023 11:18

I see some TRAS on Twitter crowing that they have 100k signatures to not clarify the equality act, and that means that trans rights is more popular blah blah blah. And meanwhile I’m sitting here very pleased that both sides are going to be thrashed out in a debate and we are finally going to hear their definition of “sex”, and the advantages of that definition compared to “biological sex”.

Its fascinating to see the differences in the map for this.

https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=623243

https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=627984

One shows a massive backlash in Scotland and rural areas

The other shows city hot spots

The difference is likely more organised type campaign, by universities etc than a more spontaneous and individual response...

Petition Map (by Unboxed)

Visualise UK Government Petitions

https://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=623243

SimplyAverage · 08/04/2023 12:00

I just took a look at some areas.

One was a Uni city, twice the number signed the trans petition.

The other area, has no university and has similar numbers who signed each petition.

I just don't understand people who want an unclear equality act and blurred boundaries in every way.

Hepwo · 08/04/2023 12:32

It's always the same demographic. Students.

You have to laugh really. My DS, when a student, earnestly told me that some men are born with women's brains.