The Tories aren't serious about protecting biological sex - Spectator article.

[TheColourOutOfSpace]

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-tories-arent-serious-about-protecting-biological-sex/

Article by Kellie-Jay Keen

Everybody with half a brain, male or female, can see the Tories’ move for exactly what it is: opportunistic grandstanding. Many of them will also know that all the fine talk from Kemi about biological sex and common sense is worthless without full repeal of the 2004 Gender Recognition Act (GRA), and the removal of gender reassignment as a protected characteristic.

Quite pleased to see this published. ❤️
It's about time we are able to get to the heart of the issue when it comes to protecting women's rights. The idea that some men are allowed to insert themselves into women's spaces because a piece of government paper says they can, means women cannot have single-sex spaces and services.

@UtopiaPlanitia I think we are basically in agreement but proposing slightly different paths to resolution.

The protected characteristic should be something very broad like "gender diversity" and should certainly be reworded as I said in my last sentence of my 00:13 post. Sex never changes, and many trans people don't have any plans for amy kind of reassignment process in amy case. What is reassigned is gender and whether or not any kind of surgery or medical treatment has taken place is irrelevant.

Your suggestions about lawful discrimination are unnecessary if it is properly clarified that sex and gender are different. No discrimination is taking place if a male who is trans is treated the same as a male who is not trans when it comes to accessing facilities and opportunities reserved for females.

The discrimination which does happen and must remain illegal is denial of employment or housing or goods/ services. When it comes to services, any service that is legitimately sex-segregated is not being discriminatory to uphold the legitimacy of the decision to make provision based on sex.

If a swimming pool has mostly entirely mixed sessions but has 3 sessions a week which are for female people only then all males are excluded from those 3 sessions, whether or not they are trans, so a transwoman is not being discriminated against if excluded. Discrimination would be taking place if a gender-diverse male was treated less favourably than a gender-conforming male.

Transphobia does exist and is abhorent - and I am talking about being insulting or demeaning in any way to people whose gender doesn't conform to the stereotypes associated with their sex. Respectfully recognising someone's sex isn't transphobic though.

Why do you feel that this particular characteristic is more worthy of protection than other more valid ones?

If ‘gender reassignment’ was re-worded as ‘gender diversity’, we’d need to be really clear what the word meant, and that it could not be interpreted as a duty to accommodate any public kink or sexual expression, which could be experienced as harassment by others.

In my opinion, people should not be harassed for expressing their identity, (I am not just speaking about anything which is considered to be gender related) but there must be grounds for certain stipulations, for example in the workplace, certain expectations of conformity in order to not put off customers. People can express their goth identity in their own time.

In practice, I think expression of identity is, at best, an expression of belief.

I didn't say it was more worthy. Why not engage with what I actually said rather than curving in stuff I never asserted? I don't think there should be a sliding scale of "validity" but if there were then I would place things that people have no choice about - sex, race, age, disability, sexual orientation - above things that are a matter of free will - gender diversity, religion, marital status. Maternity/pregnancy may be a matter of free will on an individual basis but society would collapse if no one did it so would go in the middle. However making such a scale official would be ridiculous to enforce - and should never mean that then needs and rights of a particular group are ignored, rather than being met in a way that has less impact on the needs and rights of another group. There will always be a need for sensible unbiased judgements to balance and evaluate the impact of harms done where the needs of two groups with different protected characteristics will clash.

People have always been insulting towards men and women who don't conform to gender sterotypes. That is not 'transphobia' . Transphobia is a recentlly coined term designed to accompany the rise of transgender ideology.

The way you are using 'gender' suggests to me that gender = presentational style, rather than anything more substantial

@DexaVooveQhodu

You seem angry, I'm not sure why, and you have misinterpreted what I said. But happy to talk soecifically about what you've asserted.

Discrimination against trans people in housing, employment and the provision of goods and services is totally wrong.

What is your basis for saying this particular sort of discrimination is wrong? What about the undefinable category of "trans people" requires additional protection to those already provided by the EA10? Do you not believe that "trans people" already have the same protections afforded to the rest of society, without needing an additional category just for their particular belief?

Only more recently...lots of women have been banned from Mumsnet for posting similar. Things have started to ease up a little over the last couple of years,

I think you're right....it is not on the horizon at present, but that doesn't mean that it should not still be an end goal. Everything is going to be incremental, and it is going to take time. Years of time.

It’s been around for 20 years too long. It should never have passed.

@Ingenieur

What is your basis for saying this particular sort of discrimination is wrong?

This is a thread in which it is being proposed that protection for trans people should be removed. Last sentence of the first paragraph of the OP. Which I am arguing against. Arguing against this is not the same as saying it's more important than other protected characteristics.

What about the undefinable category of "trans people" requires additional protection to those already provided by the EA10?

I am not arguing for additional protection. I am arguing for a similar level of protection with clarifications to ensure that it is clear that trans rights do not include the right to ignore womens needs and rights. I am arguing against the assertion that trans people should have this protection removed.

Do you not believe that "trans people" already have the same protections afforded to the rest of society, without needing an additional category just for their particular belief?

As I'm not asserting any need for extra protection this is already covered. I don't think that protection under the category of religion or belief is sufficient because there are plenty of people who believe in genderwoo magic who aren't trans themselves so it's not the belief that gets discriminated against.

I am very much gender-critical feminist myself but I have dearly-loved family members who identify as trans (we are a neurodiverse family and it's well-known that neurodiverse people are more likely to identity as trans too). I very much want my rights as a woman and my rights as a non-believer in gender-woo to be protected and I want discrimination against trans people to remain illegal despite this not being a belief system I share. I've already said it needs to be clearly defined that asserting and protecting womens rights to single-sex facilities and opportunities is not and never will be discrimination against trans people because sex and gender are different.

@DexaVooveQhodu
Transphobia does exist and is abhorent - and I am talking about being insulting or demeaning in any way to people whose gender doesn't conform to the stereotypes associated with their sex.

What do you mean by 'gender' in the above statement? Are you talking about their presentation or a feeling in their head?

Many people who don't identify as transgender also don't conform to stereotypes associated with their sex.

Many people who do identify as transgender look no different from most other people of the same sex but claim to have a feeling which makes them transgender.

Who is it you think should be protected under the category of 'gender diversity'?

People have always been insulting towards men and women who don't conform to gender sterotypes.

This is really true. I still struggle to do certain gender non-conforming things without bracing myself in anticipation of the jibes and bullying. It was formally called ‘sexism’.

The GRA 2004 Section 9 meant that holders of a GRC actually changed sex -
'(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)."

It is evident that some people realised fairly quickly that this caused problems, as shown by the fudge of the exceptions in the Equality Act 2010. The EA had its first reading in April 2009, but the work of drafting it had been going on since at least 2007.

But not enough people realised it, the fudge was not effective - and of course in practical terms the gender ideologues got themselves into powerful positions and took over the whole narrative.

@DexaVooveQhodu

This is a thread in which it is being proposed that protection for trans people should be removed. Last sentence of the first paragraph of the OP. Which I am arguing against. Arguing against this is not the same as saying it's more important than other protected characteristics.

I'll ask again, in your view what is it about "trans" that requires the protection of the EA10?

That's a lot of words and I'm still no wiser as to what it is your trying to say.

And I checked, I'm not hungover, I'm not terribly tired and I've eaten. I still dont understand, sorry.

I'm not asserting any need for extra protection this is already covered. I don't think that protection under the category of religion or belief is sufficient because there are plenty of people who believe in genderwoo magic who aren't trans themselves so it's not the belief that gets discriminated against.

Wouldn’t it come under “the expression of a belief”? Believers in particular religions, etc, usually suffer discrimination because of their outward expression of their belief, rather than their private thoughts.

I'm slightly confused why anyone thinks the GRA is necessary to allow males to wear women's clothing?

Surely if a man is discriminated against for wearing a skirt (for example) he could use the pc of sex discrimination if he is treated differently for being a man wearing a skirt?

My understanding is that the entire purpose of the GRA was a work around for Gay marriage which is no longer required.

The Equality Act as it is drafted allows for the pc of Gender Reassignment which does not require a GRC to operate as a pc.

I think a full a frank discussion needs to be had to give trans people rights in relation to housing and employment without the right to falsify documents and and to enter single sex spaces reserved for women.

These issues just need to be broken down and laws amended so that everyone gets protection.

A man who wears fetishitic clothes at work such as prosthetic breasts ought to be able to be disciplined for wearing inapprorpriate work wear in the same a woman would be, being trans identifying shouldn't be a 'get out of jail free card'.

I always get the feeling that Kemi Badenoch is battling to get the issue heard in cabinet and that she would go further if she could. I do think she gets the issue fully and is seriously commited to srting it out. I hope she gets the leadership of the Conservatives when Rishi goes.

Popping in very quickly in the middle of cooking dinner to post this article by Ayaan Hirsi Ali that I think is relevant to the thread:

'The recent tide of transgender activism, which used to focus more on the tribulations of men who were typically feminine and women typically masculine, has been a boon for AGPs. Not only can these men, many of whom are high-powered, high-IQ, and even narcissistic and sociopathic (as posited by the ever-prescient journalist Steve Sailer) now impose their fetishes onto others. They can be hailed as virtuous and brave for doing so.'

https://www.restorationbulletin.com/p/misogyny-on-the-left