Let Women Speak - a new song to extol the virtues and bravery of KJK!

[IwantToRetire]

If you like folksy ballards this might appeal.

But am really posting to show how LWS has gone global.

US musicians writing about events in NZ organised by UK campaigner!

"This is the Ballad of Posie Parker
Before it gets light it's gotta get darker
Down under in Auckland they thought that they could stop her
But she never loses 'cause she's the Posie Parker"

https://whistle.bandzoogle.com/track/3427154/let-women-speak

I don't really understand about the clarification of the law thing.

Yes that's clear. Oh well, never mind.

if they currently have that right

Males with a gender identity have it as much as any other male. Hope that helps.

Okay I found this summary:

• The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single sex services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to sex.
• To establish a separate or single-sex service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of sex is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.
• There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.
• When considering how your service is provided to trans people, you must balance the impact on all service users and show that there is a sufficiently good reason for excluding trans people or limiting or modifying their access to the service. Some service providers may find it helpful to have a policy for how services are provided to trans people. Where this is the case we recommend you develop a policy but this is not a legal requirement. If you do have a policy you should be prepared to consider whether particular circumstances justify departing from the policy.

This doesn't mention GRC except to say it doesn't matter whether the person has GRC or not. Which bit is going to get clarified?

@flaffydaffy

You seem to completely fail to understand what this is about. This is what the (currently hated by trans rights activists to the point of throwing piss everywhere) EHRC currently say. We know that they are an organisation with a high degree of ideological capture. Women have asked for the exemptions to be clarified that single sex means single sex, and not "actual women and males who identify as women".

Anyway, as I said at the start, you don't seem to me to be engaging in particularly good faith, so i'll leave it there.

I can't speak for Posie so maybe you should ask her. Since you found her tweet quite easily, I should imagine you could just as easily tweet her.

From my own perspective, I see it that the TQ+ have hitched themselves to the LGB and then behaved appallingly. The aggressive language, the endless harassment, the violence, the unreasonable demands, the Bridges-esque hysteria that there's fascism/Nazism/literal genocide...the risk is that that brush will be used to tar LGB people, who are nothing to do with the TQ+ campaigns, and damage the progress that's been made against homophobia. I would argue that the TQ+ end of the Alphabet Wordsalad have co-opted the LGB campaign and are almost using them like human shields.

So I can see exactly why some LGB people want a separation, and why that would be supported by the likes of Posie. And me.

No I don't understand. I asked what bit of this needs to be clarified, and you said that the exceptions need to be clarified to relate to sex and not gender. But the exceptions already relate to sex? This is a summary about when services are allowed to exclude trans people, so I still don't know which part of it needs to be clarified. I've not come into this with prior knowledge about the Equality Act so I'm genuinely trying to understand what clarification is being campaigned for and what impact it would have.

They currently have the right to access toilets etc based on their gender or indeed their sex or whatever, it's not legally controlled. If the right to access spaces based on their gender was taken away then that removes some rights. Rights would be removed. I was asked what rights they're defending, as if there aren't any, and I've given an example of rights they are defending. You think that right should be taken away and people should only be able to access spaces based on their sex. So they're defending that right from people who think the same way you do.

You should apply all this to prisons and ponder on the implications. Dragging this onto toilets is a minimising tactic.

People don't currently have the right to be housed in a prison according to their gender though do they, so it doesn't apply to prisons. I believe it's done on a case by case basis.

But the exceptions already relate to sex?

The clarification is necessary as male people "identify" as female and claim this is legally the same as biological sex.

It's not.

Why would there be exemptions for the female sex on the basis of personal choice or identity whether you are male or female? It cancels out the purpose of the exemption.

It's being clarified because of the relentless insistence that male people are female.

People don't currently have the right to be housed in a prison according to their gender though do they, so it doesn't apply to prisons. I believe it's done on a case by case basis.

They rely on exactly the same legal exemption.

What you're saying here, I still don't know which bit of the summary I posted needs to be clarified. Like you're saying some stuff here but I can't link it to the paragraphs I've posted? If there's part of the law that needs to be clarified (not changed) I would have thought that would be part of the wording with an ambiguous meaning? Which part of the stuff I've posted has an ambiguous meaning and needs to be clarified? Which sentence? Which words? I'm not being deliberately obtuse I'm just trying to understand how it's being 'clarified' and not changed.

I would have thought that would be part of the wording with an ambiguous meaning? Which part of the stuff I've posted has an ambiguous meaning and needs to be clarified?

The one word - sex. Obviously it doesn't have an ambiguous meaning but people that want it to have insisted that it does. So now we have to add the world biological to it.

• The Equality Act allows for the provision of separate or single BIOLOGICAL SEX services in certain circumstances under ‘exceptions’ relating to BIOLOGICAL SEX.
• To establish a separate or single-BIOLOGICAL SEX service, you must show that you meet at least one of a number of statutory conditions (set out in this section of the guide) and that limiting the service on the basis of BIOLOGICAL SEX is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. For example, a legitimate aim could be for reasons of privacy, decency, to prevent trauma or to ensure health and safety. You must then be able to show that your action is a proportionate way of achieving that aim.
• There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-BIOLOGICAL SEX service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-BIOLOGICAL SEX service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not.
• When considering how your service is provided to trans people, you must balance the impact on all service users and show that there is a sufficiently good reason for excluding trans people or limiting or modifying their access to the service. Some service providers may find it helpful to have a policy for how services are provided to trans people. Where this is the case we recommend you develop a policy but this is not a legal requirement. If you do have a policy you should be prepared to consider whether particular circumstances justify departing from the policy.

Okay I just clarified 'sex' to mean 'biological sex' and it hasn't changed the meaning of any part of it.

We know. Now explain that to the lawyers and activists claiming it does.

Absent the GRA, sex would exclusively mean biological sex because it's not actually possible to change your sex.

As there are exemptions in both the GRA and EA, arguably it still does.

It's already unambiguous though? It says that if anyone wants to provide a same-sex service they need to demonstrate they have reasonable grounds to exclude trans people. It's already unambiguously about biological sex by definition. How could it possibly be clarified any further? And you're saying you want it clarified? How? As I've just demonstrated you can replace every instance of the word 'sex' with 'biological sex' and it doesn't change ANYTHING about it?? Please help I'm so confused, there has to be more to it than this surely.

So you want to remove exemptions? Is that what this is about? Do you want to make it so that nobody has to prove a legitimate and proportionate aim in order to exclude trans people? I mean that makes a hell of a lot more sense than what Hepwo has said but that is CHANGING it not CLARIFYING it.

Please help I'm so confused, there has to be more to it than this surely.

why not read the Sex Matters website on the matter, it's from that campaign that this will be debated in parliament.

There's already a legitimate and proportionate aim, the privacy, dignity and safety of women and girls.

There isn't.

I googled Sex Matters. Apparently the paragraph I posted IS the clarified guidance? And it came out over a year ago? So what needs to be clarified further in it? Surely the job is already done?

You do understand the difference between the law and guidance don't you?

Or even worse - it might be a cafe that doesn't respect my pronouns, which would be literal genocide.

Yes, so the guidance is now apparently fine. How does the law differ and what needs to be changed or clarified in the law?