Clarification that single sex means, single sex?

[Citrusandginger]

I've just seen this on the Baroness' Twitter. Am particularly pleased, as had understood Maria Caulfield to be on the TWAW side of the debate.

A positive step, I think.



Apologies- photo didn't load

Thanks @Citrusandginger Not my party, but that doesn't make them wrong.

I'm afraid these days I do suspiciously press on exactly what is meant by 'single sex' because you will meet people who will look you in the eye and insist that this women's ward is single sex because TWAW. So this kind of statement means bugger all to me now.

The best thing is to actually reference the wording in the EA as to what single sex means.

The problem that the act means they are not seen as the default and have to be implemented on justified grounds.

And most organisations, including the NHS (even if only for budgetary reasons rather than trans activists) cant be bothered to think through let alone write up why single sex service provision is appropriate, needed and wanted.

The problem with that statement is that the NHS allows people to self id both their sex (through changing their NHS number) and their gender (instead of sex) marker on all records. As such they cannot possibly adhere to a single sex policy

The problem with that statement is that the NHS allows people to self id

But that is an example of the NHS NOT taking advantage of single sex exemptions that are based on biological sex.

So the problem isn't the EA but lazy or captured or penny pinching institutions.

Once I would have been happy at that statement but until they can clarify that TW are actually men and therefore need to stay out of women's spaces, plus it also gets done before the next GE.

Otherwise it's just words. And words are becoming more and more meaningless unfortunately.

Once I would have been happy at that statement but until they can clarify that TW are actually men and therefore need to stay out of women's spaces, plus it also gets done before the next GE

The EA refers to biological sex, not what someone identifies as.

So the issue is to challenge organisations like the NHS.

But in fact the real issue is not so much that everyone is a trans ally, but that nobody is a women's ally.

If women were respected none of this would be happening.

The TRA project is backed up and supported by MRAs who are only too happy to negate women's rights.

Its not about words, its about motives.

Nothing that women have been campaigning on for since the second wave has moved the dial in any way in favour of women.

The words just illustrate the real issue.

Women are second class citizens.

"The EA refers to biological sex, not what someone identifies as." I thought the Haldane judgment had established that it refers to legal sex? So it's what's on your birth certificate (which gets changed if you have a GRC) not what someone identifies as.

The EA refers to biological sex, not what someone identifies as.

No it doesn't. There was that ruling where legal sex triumphs over biological sex, which is just another way to say what someone identifies as.

Legal and biological sex need to mean the same.

Men have successfully fogged and confused everything to wangle into women's spaces and destroy women's rights, and it's worked because you say 'single sex' and everyone goes - but now the words and law mean a whole waffle of different things depending on who you speak to and no one knows any more.

Men's freedoms to use women = 1 women's equality and rights = 0

The question needs to be put constantly "when you say single sex, are you saying that this space will be exclusionary of anyone not identified as female at birth?'

And any answer but a loud, determined 'yes' is the wrong one.

I thought the Haldane judgment had established that it refers to legal sex?

This is the nub of the problem. When the EA was edited to allow for the GRA (ie GRCs) it was written that in most circumstances having a GRC meant you were "legally" the opposite sex.

And even the dunderheads who wrote this did stop and thinking and say, so what happens when you need single (biological) sex services etc.. So they wrote the Single Sex Exemptions. ie if you can say it is "justified" to be single sex it is okay.

Which of course is a slap in the face to women as logically as the actual sex and the larger number the norm should be that women only means only biological women. Whereas we have to prove or rely on institutions to prove that it is a valid demand.

Never forget that one of the reasons the TRAs are so sucessful is that behind them the unreconstructed MRAs are loving it that women can be punished, diminished and despised.