In the actual Guardian! "The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening?"

[AlphariusOmegron]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/law-clear-cannot-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex?CMP=share_btn_tw

Please can someone remind me when women were asked if we were OK with sharing our toilets and private spaces with transwomen? Because I can't remember that happening but they wouldn't have just walked in without asking first, surely?

@DadJoke
I don't think you are being consistent.
not legitimate or proportionate, or based on any existing case law around loos
It would seem very legitimate and proportional to gender critical women. Facilities are available to the trans woman but he wants to use the single sex space. That space is single sex. It could end up being the case law.

The no assumptions about how many transgender people is one of your own making. There are many transgender people in my hypothetical company. All but one are happy using the facilities in complance with the three space policy.

The hypothetical trans woman has outed themselves many times in general conversation with other staff. It's a really big important part of their identity, and they make sure everyone knows it. It's impossible not to know they are a trans woman.

People trying to enforce the policy includes HR, who enforce all company policies on all staff equally.

Your alternative? forms a central part of my hypthetical question already. They are already well catered for, they just don't like not being able to use the female single sex space.

It is discrimination. That's the only thing we agree on. My question is : Is it lawful discrimination under the Equalities act exemptions that allows for discrimination where it is necessary and proportionate?

Nutpicking doesn't really tell us anything

nutpicking is one fuck of a Freudian slip 😳

I think the likes of jokers believe that if the harangue enough we'll start to believe in the magic essence - or at least shut up like decent women.

The alternative is that gender critical people who object to transgender people using the loos which match their gender have the option of using the loo which matches their sex or the unisex one, which I think is a reasonable accomodation

Yet another misrepresentation. Most women don't object to transgender people in single sex toilets reserved for females. They object to males being there.

@DadJoke
Why did you assume the trans woman who wanted to use the female single sex space was the only trans person in a large organisation? There seemed to be no assumption on your part that a bunch of other trans people might be happy complying with the three space policy?
The only reason I can think of is if you assume ALL trans women want to use the female single sex space? Revealing perhaps?

It is discrimination. That's the only thing we agree on. My question is : Is it lawful discrimination under the Equalities act exemptions that allows for discrimination where it is necessary and proportionate?

Need a test case but I would think in the case where there are 3 sets of (single sex male/ female and unisex) provision that it is necessary -

To protect the dignity and safety of women who need single sex provision (e.g. women of religious minority or sexual abuse surviors)

and proportionate because it is not preventing the transwoman from accessing the gender neutral provision.

Basically woman needs v transwoman prefers.

As always, the MRA perspective completely disregards the existence of females with trans identities. It is always always about what males want and what males can get, from females. It is so illuminating. Bright light.

Oh dear! I better tell my employer that they are breaking DadJoke's law.

Seriously, your reductio ad absurdum arguments are weaker every time you present them.

The alternative is that gender critical people who object to transgender people using the loos which match their gender have the option of using the loo which matches their sex or the unisex one, which I think is a reasonable accomodation

wait…I’m confused (again)

so female person, objects to a transwoman using the ladies loo (which matches the transwomans gender) has the choice of using the one that matches her sex…female or the unisex, both of which contain males….how is that a reasonable accommodation?

@DadJoke

I worked for a law firm until recently. It had men, women and gender neutral toilets. I think it was pretty well understood that "men" and "women" would mean male and female, but admittedly no one tested it to my knowledge. It wasn't a strict rule set out anywhere. And lots of people used the gender neutral toilets - maybe some were trans but mostly for convenience if they were passing or seated closest to those.

Frankly, surely most trans people don't want to attract attention or make colleagues uncomfortable? Obviously, there are those like Eddie Izzard who do things like this and use women's facilities to make a point in a leather miniskirt in circumstances in which everyone knows you have a penis and love part of your life as a man and regard it as a bit of a game. Most other trans people surely want to live their lives without drama. I'd hate to be using a space in which my Muslim colleagues hovered outside the door because they wouldn't want to use the facilities at the same time. Personally, I'd use the one in which no one cared what sex I was.

@RufustheFactualReindeer
It is a bit lose lose for the females isn't it?
There is no scenario that a woman get to use a female single sex space without males having right of entry.

lechiffre

well exactly

no loo for the female and 3 for males

Of course the idea that *dad thinks this is a reasonable accommodation explains a lot

dad

missed an asterisk, that’s probably Freudian as well 🤔

@RufustheFactualReindeer Dad assuming that among a large group of people there are no trans people who would be happy to use a three space option for me is very telling.

It’s interesting to observe which topics get subjected to obvious derails.

This thread is (or was) about a lesbian being bullied, harassed and discriminated against by her colleagues and her employer.

Because those colleagues claim to believe that biological sex isn’t real or is unimportant, and on that basis they consider themselves to be righteous and morally superior and wholly justified in bullying and harassing a colleague.

It’s also about how many instances there have been of women who don’t tell lies about biological reality being bullied and harassed by colleagues who are prepared to lie about biological reality.

If dadjoke wants to post endless screeds about toilets, it would be courteous of dadjoke to start their own thread, instead of derailing the OP’s thread. .

It is discrimination. That's the only thing we agree on. My question is : Is it lawful discrimination under the Equalities act exemptions that allows for discrimination where it is necessary and proportionate?

It's not discrimination. The question isn't whether everyone is treated the same but whether anyone is disadvantaged. Everyone has toilets. No-one has to be outed or humiliated or afraid. Religious people can stick to their rules.

The legitimate/proportionate test doesn't apply.

(I like the idea of whoever toilets because they'd be useful if you need to help an opposite sex person like a child or adult with disabilities.)

Yes, sorry, we should stop talking about toilets.

I am not a lawyer.

Understatement of the year.

What is clear from recent employment tribunals is that it is not acceptable to harass or discriminate against people who state sex is a biological reality and that women need the protection of single sex spaces.

Telling women that we must allow biological males into our prisons, rape crisis centres, changing rooms and toilets silences women's voices.

This hurts precisely because Victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse KNOW that their abusers relied on being able to silence their victims.

Believing your own eyes (it's a man in front of me) is not discriminating. Speaking the truth (it's a man in front of me) is not discriminating.

It doesn't matter how much a trans woman thinks they feel like a woman - they have no right to be in places women feel vulnerable (toilets, changing rooms, rape crisis centres) or in places which celebrate women's achievements (in sport, business, or the arts)

https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/article/1859129/does-gender-critical-university-professors-tribunal-victory-mean-employers

I answered your question. It is not proportionate for all the reasons I gave, so likely to be unlawful discrimination. And of course, like all women, most trans women want to use women’s loos.

If you want to ban transgender people from specific loos, you have to know who they are. How would HR do this? You know the transgender people who gave outed themselves, but not others, and are suspicious of GNC people, but how will you make sure?

@theilltemperedclavecinist for this policy to be enforced you would need to know who was transgender and who was not. How would you enforce this without outing transgender people?

Why do transgender people have the special right to not be ‘outed’, i.e. having to declare their sex? What is the reason for this taboo that does not apply to other people?