Sex Matters to seek judicial review on BTP searching policy

[southbiscay]

x.com/sexmattersorg/status/1872368242012131505?s=46

Good news - gardening in order.

Also there is an interesting comment on the GRA:If we lose and the court declares that a GRC changes a police officer’s sex for the purpose of searching members of the public, this would strengthen the case for repealing or reforming the Gender Recognition Act."

And it's good to see this bit bringing awareness of the fetish that is autogynephila to a wider audience: "The High Court will be asked not just to look at the meaning of words in law, but to consider the concrete facts relevant to the case, including the facts of autogynephilia; the way systemic weaknesses tend to act as magnets for abusers; the impossibility of “passing” for most men who identify as women; and the abusive nature of deceit as to sex where intimate procedures or searching are concerned."

It’s never lobbying for that eg by way of a Select Committee examining the many and egregious safeguarding failures or any other such way of tackling it.

So, how do we go about doing that?

I think every legal challenge further exposes the absurdity and misogyny of the GRA and thereby helps the case for repeal.

The most likely outcome here will be 1,b,ii. They'll just go back and make the same decision but with an EIA.

And ignore everything else that they're asking for?

Agree with the exasperation that women have to head for the courts for all this. But worth remembering that this is the pinnacle of the efforts of predatory men to change the law by removing certain crimes that impact on women and girls. Indecent exposure / flashing (a well evidenced precursor to rape and other sexual abuse). Also voyeurism. They've been remarkably successful with this so we shouldn't be surprised that they don't stop there, but now go for legitimising the rights of men in the police to sexually assault women.

Also worth asking who has been able to influence the useful idiots in the BTP (& other senior police organisations) as I assume that they're not all personally invested in this?

All strength to Sex Matters as in defending this. Apart from outing those intent on promoting sexual VAWG in the police, it also makes politicians and other commentators say all the quiet bits out loud.

We know that some trans people are so for sexual fetish reasons, and as we can’t differentiate between these and others, we have to exercise caution in all cases.
(Similarly, some people who work with children do so for nefarious reasons, so all such people need to be DBS checked. No reasonable person working with children sees this as hateful.)

I hope this is what has happened with my son. But anyone in this category is, as you say, joining in with damaging behaviour as dictated by gender identity activists. It's also a concern that they may get drawn into the worse extremes, where their own boundaries may get compromised, and that would make it more likely that they would become desensitised to other people's distress at boundary violations.

For this reason, I am in favour of legal cases that shine light on bad behaviour by activists and by captured organisations, in the hope that the publicity will wake people (including the trans people and trans allies that I know) up to the damage caused to women (and sometimes men) and to the illogicality of gender identity thinking. Just repealing the GRA (even if it's politically feasible) does nothing for people trapped in Queer Theory thinking; on the contrary, it would probably entrench them in their feelings of being downtrodden victims.

For this reason, I am in favour of legal cases that shine light on bad behaviour by activists and by captured organisations, in the hope that the publicity will wake people (including the trans people and trans allies that I know) up to the damage caused to women (and sometimes men) and to the illogicality of gender identity thinking. Just repealing the GRA (even if it's politically feasible) does nothing for people trapped in Queer Theory thinking; on the contrary, it would probably entrench them in their feelings of being downtrodden victims.

I think that's roughly where I stand at the moment. One of the reasons I think repeal will take years is that right now the general view of the GRA is likely to be along the lines of, Where's the harm?' / 'Live and let live'. I think legal cases can help to show up where the harm lies.

Agree with the exasperation that women have to head for the courts for all this. But worth remembering that this is the pinnacle of the efforts of predatory men to change the law by removing certain crimes that impact on women and girls. Indecent exposure / flashing (a well evidenced precursor to rape and other sexual abuse). Also voyeurism. They've been remarkably successful with this so we shouldn't be surprised that they don't stop there, but now go for legitimising the rights of men in the police to sexually assault women.

As I said yesterday, althought there is an element of predatory men, this is primarily about women being made 2nd class citizens by a law based on well established, well entrenched misogyny and sexism.

It has only happened because those drafting the law didn't not conside women have rights.

The arguement has to be won on the basis that women deserve equal rights.

Women are the ones who should say whether they want a service or support to be exclusively by other biological women.

It isn't for the legal profession, trans people or queer activists.

To have some partial win because of some potential danger from some, only entrenches the disrespect to women that the SSE are only considered for a minority of cases, rather than it being the natural order of things.

By diverting into circular arguements about level of threat is not the issue.

It is about the right of women to say this is what we want, and was up until the GRA our natural right.

The imposition of a minority view point on a majority, is the issue.

Dont feed the trans narrative that all terfs are just anti trans.

The arguement / issue, is about women's right to define what are women's rights.

We are not second clase citizens.

We are not the lab rats of a social experiment by an extreme political group.

I dont understand how on a forum that is called Women's Rights no one feels able to stand up for women's rights.

Rights are a social construct. If society does not agree we should have certain rights, we won't have them.

Until very recently, society, including the lawmakers and law enforcers, assumed that trans women were reasonable people who recognised they were being given a huge accomodation and would not take the piss. "TWAW" was assumed to be targetting the type of nasty people who would shout "it's a man!" at a TW minding their own business across the street. With that mindset, it is not a given that women's rights need to be protected as female-only, which is why we ended up with the GRA in the first place.

It's only now some are starting to realise this assumption was wrong, and when TRAs said "TWAW" they meant it literally. They really did mean that TW should be considered to be women at all times - in women's sports, in private spaces, in intimate care, in political roles, in gender balance initiatives and so on.

And the thing that is throwing light on this is the court cases. Because in day to day public discourse when groups like Stonewall or indeed politicians are challenged on how this impacts women, and on whether women have raised concerns, they lie.

It's the painful process of legal discovery and making statements under oath that is bringing the issues caused by "TWAW" and genderism to light, and for this reason I think the legal approach is important.

I actually think we - women - should have to explain why we need single sex supports and provisions rather than take it as read. Because we can explain it. And that makes our case much stronger.

I don't think there is anything innate in humanity that means we can't get naked or pee or intimately search or do maths or run network events with the opposite sex, I think it's the bad behaviour of men that makes single sex versions of these things necessary. And that is something we should be clear about.

I worry that if we just say "It should be enough for women to say we don't want men around", it becomes impossible for women to object to "It should be enough for men to say we don't want women around" when the reasons for the former are very different to the reasons for the latter, and the impact on men from the former (minimal) is very different to the impact on women from the latter (marginalisation and exclusion from power networks),

I am also aware of the tendency of men to fetishise women's privavcy, cuminating of course in the desperation of trans women and peeping toms to transgress that privacy. Portraying women's need/desire for privacy as "the natural state of affairs" rather than a protection against men's poor behaviour IMO feeds into that fetishation of women as hidden mystery.

(As an aside, in my post above I initially mistyped "peeping toms" as "peeing toms" and now I'm never going to not think of the "we just want to peeeeeee" brigade as Peeing Toms.)

Peeing toms works too. Tom cats spray to mark their territory.

It's only now some are starting to realise this assumption was wrong, and when TRAs said "TWAW" they meant it literally. They really did mean that TW should be considered to be women at all times - in women's sports, in private spaces, in intimate care, in political roles, in gender balance initiatives and so on.

This has always been the case from when the limited women's rights to a few occassions, ie those that met the single sex exemptions.

This isn't new.

Some newer groups only seem to have woken up to it.

ie from the start the labour government that drafted the changes did mean, and as court cases have said, for "all purposes" trans women are legal women.

It is only because women are considered second class citizens that no one bothered to challenge it. No other protected characteristic had their characteristic eaten into by someone with a certificate.

Arguing about whether or not TW are predeatory, is not the main issue.

it is about women's rights being undermined.

It is the same issue as Sarah's case against Survivors Network Brighton.

Dont let the arguement be side tracked into dont be nasty about TW.

It isn't about them it is about us as women.

In a way the past few years although busy with campaigns, and court cases, have only dabbled at the fringes.

What is needs is to go back to basics.

ie an analysis based on basic feminist issues of women's sex based rights.

As the law stands at the moment our sex based rights have been removed in law.

Its time the newer groups got to grips with this basic fact rather than nibbling at this aspect or the other.

As women we should be arguing to have our rights back.

"It should be enough for women to say we don't want men around", it becomes impossible for women to object to "It should be enough for men to say we don't want women around" when the reasons for the former are very different to the reasons for the latter, and the impact on men from the former (minimal) is very different to the impact on women from the latter (marginalisation and exclusion from power networks),

That's like the defeatist attitude of why we should have misogygny as a hate crime.

If they can write a law that instances uses rape crisis support as the rationale for women only services, then it is possible to frame a law that is about women's privacy and right to protection, and not immediately assume it will stop women competing in the work place or whatever.

Honestly it is so depressing to hear of threads on FWR that basically we shouldn't ask for too much.

The issue is that a recent law has taken away our rights.

We should be angry enough to campaign to get them back.

The current hodgepodge of different campaign groups, honing in on a aspect does nothing to challenge the underlying sexism of the impact of the GRA on sex based rights.

I think that the arguments about dignity and safety take us in to territory that TRAs like to debate - as everyone has the right to dignity and safety. The bottom line is whether there is a material difference between a male with and without a certificate with words on it pertaining to gender - which, clearly there isn’t. The difference between these two classes of males is subjective.

TRAs are in a double bind. There best bet would be to object to single sex provision per se, as this would address the issue of trans people being denied access to their choice of single sex provision. However, this is undesirable to them as it denies them the affirmation they seek out from being classified as the opposite sex. However, they don’t like raising the affirmation/validation aspect as this signposts a clear difference between women and transwomen.

This is why they don’t object to single sex provision; seek out arguments about dignity and safety; and never mention the affirmation/validation aspects of using opposite sex facilities.

The more society is exposed to the understanding that TW are males with a GRC the better. Getting this narrative into the public domain will be helpful. Whilst TRAs will suggest this is transphobic and hateful, the public will be able to see that you can recognise this to be the truth whilst also harbouring no ill will towards those who experience gender related distress and/or are gender non conforming

As the owner of a female body, I really don't care what gender someone sharing private spaces or having access to my nudity has. I do, however, care that they also have a female body.

100% this, I want to share spaces with people with a female body only

If they can write a law that instances uses rape crisis support as the rationale for women only services, then it is possible to frame a law that is about women's privacy and right to protection, and not immediately assume it will stop women competing in the work place or whatever.

I don't understand your point here. I'm saying we should have to justify why we need single sex provisions, not just say as you previously did "It should be enough for women to say we don't want men around". "Privacy and Protection", supported by exmples/statistics of male behaviour, is exactly the type of justification I meant. You seem to be arguing with me by agreeing with me?

But if you think I'm saying we "shouldn't ask for too much" you are fundamentally misunderstanding me.

I do not believe outside the purely physical realm of sports we should need any special rights or protections just because we are women. This is nothing to do with trans women, it's my baseline belief.

I also believe we currently do need special rights and protections because the unjust society created by patriarchy disavantages women. I think we should have to make the case for why we need them because it's important that society continues to face the fact that women are still being treated unfairly, and to keep remaking the commitment to fight that. I believe the underlying reasons we manifestly do need women only provisions to day is not some natural state of things, but because society condones poor behaviour by men and this needs to be addressed at root not just managed by removing women

My hope is that someday the need for society to make any special provisions for women goes away because we are fully empowered in our own right.

You will note I have not mentioned trans women at all. This is because I do not think there is any instance where trans women should be considered women for the purposes of any single sex provisions. I think the GRA should be repealed. I think the best way to create support for that is to throw light on how trans ideology impacts women, and the various court cases are all helping to do that.

Do you accept that, for some TW, it is a sexual fetish?

Yes you’re exactly right. Now is the time for a serious campaign to repeal the GRA

"Dont feed the trans narrative that all terfs are just anti trans".
It is a fact that transactivists have managed to undermine the 2 criminal laws I mentioned - indecent exposure and voyeurism. Enforcing the rights of certain men with a certificate who wear a police uniform, to indecently assault women is the 3rd law to be breached (and the subject of this thread). I don't believe women should be coerced to keep silent about the criminal / safeguarding aspects of these demands in case we're accused of being anti trans. That's how this has got to these extremes - because it's demanded that women are "kind" and avoid honest speaking.

"I dont understand how on a forum that is called Women's Rights no one feels able to stand up for women's rights"

That's an odd accusation to make. Disagreements and different approaches aren't failing to stand up for women's rights. Feminist thinking and discourse encompasses all manner of views and perspectives.

I agree with you, Mrs O, but i also think the point about focusing on women's consent is important.

Probably both points need made - women have the right to decline a search by a male, even if he is very sure that he ought to be able to carry it out - and the loopholes are enabling and emboldening predators.

Thank you. You said it much more effectively than I did 🙂

“Disagreements and different approaches aren't failing to stand up for women's rights. Feminist thinking and discourse encompasses all manner of views and perspectives.”

100% this.

“The only serious way to end all this is to repeal the GRA and remove the PC of GR in the EQA. No more lawfare. And no more coming to us to pay for it either.”

I think there should be protections within the EQA for people who are gender non conforming. A lot of the trans identifying people I work with have been discriminated against due to their presentation, when it is no different to others (just different to others from the same sex class as them). However, I don’t think the protections and provisions should relate to access to provision for those of the opposite natal sex.

I think there should be protections within the EQA for people who are gender non conforming.

That should be a protection under sex, shouldnt it? People who dont conform to stereotypes typical of their sex? Its not just trans identifying people who need this protection.

The protected characteristic of GR is to protect people who have, are undergoing or propose to undergo gender reassignment. Thats different to being gender non conforming.

Organisations seem to have decided to invent a SSE but for gender rather than sex? Then not be the least bit interested in how it removes the SSE they should be focusing on.