Kemi is on the case!

[SleekMamma]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/32012712-d2ef-11ed-b1cd-5223fe349502?shareToken=f8d230bb699c280b7ebafca5e872e305

Go Kemi Go Kemi

What is the alternative?

However, this concept of 'policing' comes from not trusting people to do the right thing with very rare exceptions. And if you cannot trust people to do the right thing, then processes need to be changed.

This. It's very revealing when people say well, how are you going to enforce it?

Before all this happened, if a man continually demanded entry to women's spaces, he would eventually be arrested.

Just to add, businesses have been told it’s discriminatory by Stonewall et al, not the government.

The government have always said it’s lawful to separate by biological sex as long as it is a ‘proportionate means to a legitimate aim’ ie, you can have a ladies only gym if there is a sizeable number of local women who will not access a gym at all if they have to share with men.

Excellent point. The questions about enforcement/genital checks from these men just tells us that they care nothing for our boundaries and are planning to enter our single sex spaces whatever law is in place. They get off on it that much is very clear.

Thanks @SleekMamma I read the article.

when I read the quote attributed to Keir Starmer that “very few voters are talking about trans issues” I felt compelled to email him and say that as women make up 51% of the voting public, even if I’m in the minority for being gender critical, that’s going to be an awful lot of potential voters.

When I read it, the voting was 93% for “sex” being defined as biological sex.

So thank you sleek

But if you don't have the legislation to enforce the change, we have already seen that organisations will not make that change.

Take for instance Primark. I wrote to them in 2020 about an incident I witnessed because they changed their changing rooms to be for either sex while still keeping dodgy curtains. They accused me of having an issue and told me they would not escalate my very carefully worded complaint. And it was not about a trans person at all. It was a man. All because they refused to change away from using the curtains.

Roll on to 2023, that same store still has curtains, and supposedly now any person who wants to ensure their safety away from men needs to wait for the gender neutral option.

Therefore, they have done nothing but changed some words on a document they titled 'policy.'

Because there is no legally worded guidance that says they must provide a single sex option and it must be single sex, not gender. Under the new law, Primark will probably still continue with their current set up, however, organisations under government influence will have to provide single sex. Such as wards. Such as school toilets and changing rooms and so on.

It is a start.

It also removes the ability for any woman or girl to be labelled as a 'bigot' for voicing their needs.

That ^^

And it hasn't worked for women. At all. That some people just don't care that it doesn't work for women doesn't make the inequality and exclusions all ok, it just makes those people prejudiced and discriminatory.

This would return the presumption back to be a female only space is for biological females with no confusion about this, instead of the presumption that male people can only be excluded if a pig walks backwards with a banjo on Tuesday. This would solve the never ending issues of inequality and exclusion for women AND mean that additional resources and protections can be added in for TW, meaning that there are answers that work for all.

No, it will not be the outcome desired by some, but the problems go on escalating and those who created these issues have no capacity apparently to care or be willing to compromise. Which is when gatekeeping in law becomes necessary.

I hope, under new rules, Primark would become sue-able if they failed to provide either completely enclosed, lockable, single user change rooms or failed to separate by sex.

Obvs litigation will be a massive ovary-ache but a single test case should sort the other retailers out pretty sharpish.

"I don’t feel the threat when I use the toilet or enter a 10km race as a woman."

And what about the woman who loses a 10 km race with prize money and the entrance into a more elite race with the potential to win more prize money because a male won?

This is where it is pertinent to point out that laws are not made for individuals. They should never take into account someone's opinion who is not impacted by this or who doesn't care about the outcomes because they wish to ignore the discrimination that allowed an unequitable outcome to occur.

For the majority of the UK population that is of the female sex, the legislation around sports won't matter. But as we have seen in the USA in a type of cycle sports it really has a deep impact. Or in Canada where a male holds many of the female weightlifting records ( and one male got a bit pissed that another male who entered to make a point broke one of their records - sorry.... smashed the record).

Can you tell us what you propose with sports since you don't feel threatened by a male entrant? What do you recommend that UK Athletics should have done with their policy?

Equality law cannot be based on individual people's opinions that:

• That doesn't affect me personally so obviously doesn't matter
• I identify as that bit of reality not existing
• Those people aren't of my gang so shouldn't be entitled to equality or legal protections

This sort of cognitive challenge common in the population is kind of why impartial law exists.

This is where it is pertinent to point out that laws are not made for individuals. They should never take into account someone's opinion who is not impacted by this or who doesn't care about the outcomes because they wish to ignore the discrimination that allowed an unequitable outcome to occur.

Beautifully put.

I can just see the tick boxing exercise going on in parliament.

Well that doesn't affect me, I don't care about that, I've never even heard of that one...<chucks them all in the bin>

Next!

EmotionalSupportHyena · Today 12:21

Just to add, businesses have been told it’s discriminatory by Stonewall et al, not the government.

The government have always said it’s lawful to separate by biological sex as long as it is a ‘proportionate means to a legitimate aim’ ie, you can have a ladies only gym if there is a sizeable number of local women who will not access a gym at all if they have to share with men.

I think that Lady Haldane’s judgement showed that someone, a transwoman say who wanted access to a women only gym, who had a GRC, could sue for unlawful discrimination.

Someone with only Gender Reassignment couldn’t, but there is no way of knowing the difference, and it is illegal to ask someone if they have a GRC.

The big change here would be that services would be able to routinely use the single-sex exceptions already in the equality act to maintain single-sex spaces and single biological sex. They wouldn't have to do a potentially costly careful balancing exercise each time to avoid unlawful discrimination. That is a huge win for women who want, need and run single-sex services.

The equality act as it stands was not that bad when there were very small numbers of trans people in the UK. It was rare that the balancing exercise was needed. But now, with the explosion of numbers, they are needed more often.

The other thing I didn't see in the EHRC letter (though it was late last night when I read it) is that this shouldn't affect TW who are concerned about (for example) pay parity. Under current rules, the TW would bring a sex discrimination claim, so the comparator would be a man. Under the proposed changes they would bring a gender reassignment claim, so the comparator would be a non-trans man.

To be fair, I also think that many people who hold rather narrow views on politicians and their ability to vote only for laws that fit their personal beliefs, despite what the majority of their constituents have told them they want, believe that happens as well.

It is bizarre to have such absolute confidence in one very large political party over another and believe that no people in your political party ever thinks differently to you either. Just bizarre.

Yep (although I still have massive doubts about the accuracy of that ruling 😬)

This relatively small tweak to the EQ10 will be so useful, it will make everything so much clearer for service providers, but the changes for the vast majority of transgender people will be minimal (in legal terms) because they’ve always been excludable via using the proportionate means/legitimate aim carve out for single sex spaces.

Changes that specifically pertain to GRC holders will affect only a small proportion of trans people as most never apply for it anyway (and the GRC application rationale has ended up arse backwards as NHS waits for GICs are now longer than the 2 year requirement, which starts counting down as soon as you change the name on your utility bills, not when you get a GD diagnosis).

It’s not illegal to ask for a birth certificate as long as you ask everyone.

A birth certificate that has been changed? That is a legal lie?

Sure people can ask for that. It doesn't represent the facts though. And it is illegal to ask to see a GRC.

So, therefore seeing a birth certificate becomes meaningless if you are attempting to verify the sex of a person who has changed their birth certificate.

So, therefore seeing a birth certificate becomes meaningless if you are attempting to verify the sex of a person who has changed their birth certificate.

They are going to have to address this. Surely the paperwork must be altered.

I'm always struck, afresh, how ridiculous it is that you can change your bloody birth certificate.

An obvious man presents a female birth certificate - what you you gonna do?

Repeal the GRA and have everyone rely on EqA?

@Helleofabore I was responding to the posters point re Lady Haldene’s judgement and how you could currently lawfully determine some one’s legal sex to distinguish between a person with a GRC and a person with no GRC but who has rights under the gender reassignment pc.

@Slothtoes a repeal is unlikely to happen, it may be revised, it maybe absorbed into future legislation but I cannot see a complete abolition.

What I can envisage is biological sex and sex being further clarified in legislation etc. and a completely separate legal concept of gender being introduced. To do that they would have to agree a definition for gender - good luck with that!

In the same way as not everyone has a religion but are covered by the EA 2010, a gender pc would also have to include people who don’t have a gender.
This would keep sex binary and everyone has to have a sex, based on their biology, which can’t be changed. Gender can be fluid and for those who want to use it.

yes. I see. But it still stands that birth certificates have become meaningless.

It is a quagmire to navigate this.

@Helleofabore I agree.

I think this is the way forward. If gender is completely separate and not allowed encroach on sex it could even be self ID (just as long as it’s optional!)

Gender is one of the most problematic recent words ever introduced in my opinion. It is even more pinioning to a stereotype than being simply male or female ever was and has many meanings.
I wish it could be thrown out.