Men allowed to say no to women members. Surely this is illegal these days?

[Wemaybebetterstrangers]

https://apple.news/AXXl9B8PWSRuuHhkn-BhRTw

Frankly I wouldn’t want to spend my time surrounded by these men. However women should have the choice..

Maybe if women self ID as men..

I don't find it at all ok.

The purpose of women only spaces is to give women somewhere they can feel safe.

Men are not in danger from women in any way.

Also, these private gentlemen's clubs were set up as places for networking, for political power, excluding undesirables (especially women) from those networks.

It's certainly true that a GRC doesn't automatically confer rights for a man to use women only spaces. However, the fact that it is not clear cut and these men are able to bring a legal challenge that it is not objectively "proportionate" or a "legitimate aim" to exclude them from a specific space, is obviously going to have a chilling effect for service providers who would rather avoid lengthy, humiliating and expensive court cases.

It's not fair to say that they just can't be bothered. The combination of Stonewall and other TRA misinformation with a general "inclusion better" mentality often leads them to feel that they need to include these men, and often any organisations that state that they are woman only are targeted and encouraged by activists to confirm publicly that they include MTF men in "women".

If For Women Scotland (FWS) win the case, I’ll be surprised.

If they were to win however, I believe Labour would challenge it yes, Starmer is a staunch TWAW ‘ally’. He has his reasons.

We shall see.

Some noteworthy background information:

‘All three cases have something striking in common: there was no-one in court whose job was to represent the interests of women, and women’s rights were in each case casually swept aside. This appears with particular starkness at ¶91 of the judgment of the ECtHR in Goodwin:

No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.

The alert reader will notice who in particular is meant here by the “society” that is expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience: women.

The reader both alert and well-informed will understand by now that “inconvenience” has turned out to stand for things like being gaslit, tricked, shamed or coerced into sharing communal showers or changing rooms with any man who says he is a woman; being required to submit to a strip-search conducted by such a man; being tricked into submitting to intimate medical procedures at the hands of such men; or being imprisoned with male sex offenders.’

https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2024/11/23/fws-v-scottish-ministers-what-to-read-before-the-hearing/

To repeat yet again, it is clear cut. And in the instance of RCC is actually the example given of when the SSE are proportionate.

But some women in the VAW sector, actively use the SSE fraudulently and in the instance of ERCC the authorities didn't hold them to account.

Many, many women's services providers provide services under the SSE as intend, ie for biological women only, but they also provide trans inclusive services, and sometimes services for men.

The ones I am saying cant be bothered are for instance theatres, shops, the NHS where if the asked their female users if the would prefer single sex toilets, as the recent SM surveys shows, would want same sex facilities. That alone means it is proportionate because the group that is the protected characteristic says that is what is in line with their needs.

Many commercial venues etc., didn't just give in to some TRA campaign, they just saw it as a money saying venture (at the expense of women).

If there was as coordinated a group of women as Stonewall are coordinated who had a campaign to monitor and challenge the loss of single sex toilets it would make a huge difference.

Particulary, unless Labour has quietly done away with it, the guidelines that Kemi Badenoch circulated about this time last year on the need for single sex facilities.

And here we have teen girls sanctioned, banned from playing their sport football, because they questioned men playing in their female team.

Why are men allowed in women’s spaces but women aren’t allowed in men’s spaces like the private club.

It’s a rhetorical question. We all know why.

https://freespeechunion.org/another-teenage-footballer-banned-for-asking-if-trans-opponents-were-men/

This is about women and women’s rights.

If a man with a GRC can challenge in court that it isn’t “proportionate” or a “legitimate aim” and potentially win, it is not actually clear cut from the perspective of employers and service providers. The fact that you have completely failed to grasp this is quite odd.

Sorry I meant to quote IWantToRetire.

To repeat yet again, it is clear cut. And in the instance of RCC is actually the example given of when the SSE are proportionate.

I have been posting about this here for years. I certainly don't need any lessons from you. Yes, it's an example of a potential use of the SSE. But it's not mandatory.

It doesn't mean there isn't a chilling effect in reality, because men with GRCs are simply treated differently in law to men without.

It doesn't give them automatic access, but it does mean that if an individual male brings a case, the fact that they have a GRC will be considered as relevant in the case to support their claim that they should use the female only space, and we're all supposed to pretend that it's a magic piece of paper that makes a man into a woman.

So service providers are reasonably going to see those cases as a risk to their funds and to their reputation.

Though to be fair the men at the pool, I very much doubt that they were the same people pushing for transwomen at the women's pool. I seem to remember there is a senior person (male) at the City of London Corporation who is behind a lot of this.

Amongst average men (ie in polls) men are less keen on TWAW/TMAM than women are. Strange to me, but seems to be true.

But some women in the VAW sector, actively use the SSE fraudulently and in the instance of ERCC the authorities didn't hold them to account.

I do agree with you here.

I seem to remember there is a senior person (male) at the City of London Corporation who is behind a lot of this.

Edward Lord. "Non binary".

So service providers are reasonably going to see those cases as a risk to their funds and to their reputation.

I think sometimes there is an edge of hysteria on FWR about how often TW attempt to for instance invade SSE in rape crisis centres and refuges.

As someone who has worked with and has links with women who work is this area, I can assure you many not know how the SSE work, but actively follow them.

A few extremists such as those in Scotland are not representative, and as I keep saying only get away with it because the authorities are allowing them to act illegally.

The larger issue is that in society as whole which could also use the SSE for toilets, etc.. And it would be "proporationate" if for instance they surveyed their customers and found that the majority of women want single sex toilets.

But the problem is, not just that much of society has been Stonewalled, but much of society is always looking to save money.

So in terms of wider society there is no organisation that has as much standing and influence as Stonewall, making the case for women only provision and the fact that it is legal. You may remember that Kemi Baddenoch wrote to authorities about ensuring this. So the problem here is that Labour is not making the effort to follow through with what she started.

The problem is most people, including women, dont prioritise women's rights.

Far more women's refuges and rape support services have been closed, because local councils etc., just dont think they are worth the money. So many women seeking a refuge or similar will in fact only be offered a bed space in an all purpose hostel.

These cuts have had a far greated impact on refuges and rape crisis centres than providers being sued by a TW.

Have you any examples of where a TW has not only sued a support service for women and won?

Have you any examples of where a TW has not only sued a support service for women and won?

I have the example of where an MTF brought a case against the NHS hospital which employed them and the tribunal threw most of it out because it was clearly mostly fabricated bollocks, except the comment from the line manager asking whether he was going to undress in the ladies' changing room. That was transphobia apparently as "another woman" ie an actual woman, wouldn't have been asked that.

Yes it was wrong, and should have been appealed and it wasn't. But the point is the chilling effect, the process is the punishment etc etc.

And it would be "proporationate" if for instance they surveyed their customers and found that the majority of women want single sex toilets.

That's the decision of the court on a case by case basis, not whether you personally think it should be. We are on the same side here, I think it should be too, but unfortunately the default is inclusion of these men in female spaces unless you make a really strong case why not.

But that is about large institutions that have been captured by Stonewall.

And as I said had Baddenoch still be post she might have followed up on that.

Clearly Streeting or however it is should be seeing that nothing like that happens.

As I understand it there is now an NHS SEEN who hopefully can help stamp out this overweening entitlement.

As some of the very brave nurses are doing as individuals.

There have been loads of threads on here how for many years networks of queer activists have been infiltrating positions of influence, up to the point where they persuaded the Women and Equalities Commission that their priority should be to ammend the GRA to bring in self id.

And the one good thing about that is that it alerted many to just how far the hiddent networks had got.

And, which should be inspiring, is the numbers who responded to the consultation on this.

But what it does mean is that some work places, like it or not, have been under the inflence of the trans agenda for many years.

They are not going to give up easily, but as in the example of SEENs and the individual women who have taken legal action it can be challenged and sometimes overturned.

At the moment the problem is that the media as a whole is still cooing the narrative of TW being the most oppressed, most physically attacked, the most everything in the world. And only having right wing news outlets talk about the impact on women doesn't help change the attitude of the public.

It's irrelevant which organisations. I was making a general point. It's not just about refuges and rape crisis centres, although obviously they are the most egregious ones to ignore women's needs.

But that is about large institutions that have been captured by Stonewall.

It's about what happened in court, which is my entire point, and why there is such a chilling effect. These cases can go either way, it's a risk for service providers. So even if they are sympathetic they think women won't kick up as much of a fuss if they pander to the men as the men will if denied, so that's what they do.

Yes. 👏🏻

No

Because what I was saying / showing is that when there is a committment and understanding of SSE provision they can work.

So it is entirely about apolitical large institutions with no regard for women's rights having been captured by Stonewall.

So the onus, unfortunately, is on use and groups like Sex Matters to point out that what they are doing is wrong.

It isn't that many years when saying something was single sex was understood to be talking about biology.

And if as you say the court process is what makes them toe the Stonewall line then there will just have to be more court cases.

But that means women being prepared to do it.

Your post is just defeatist especially when women have shown it can be challenged.

If all the women on FWR worked with other women who lived in the same area to monitor which institutions were breaching basic provisions for women that would be a start.

Just posting on FWR that the cause is lost is extraordinary.

Just posting on FWR that the cause is lost is extraordinary

What on earth are you talking about?

The comments about no one is going to do anything.

Why not put some effort in to talking about what could be done.

Given the number of women who have taken a stand to imply that because 1 NHS trust made a complete idiot of itself everyone else is keeping their head down is so blatantly not true and fails to acknowledge those both men and women who are doing something,

I don’t think any cause is lost, quite the opposite. There’s great progress being made. Especially in the last few months.

Can’t wait to read The End of the World is Flat, by Simon Edge

https://www.worldofbooks.com/en-gb/products/end-of-the-world-is-flat-book-simon-edge-9781785632402?sku=GOR011943385&gad_source=1&gbraid=0AAAAADZzAICXFmqXzq7UqZnwG-LTTFpBr&gclid=Cj0KCQiAkoe9BhDYARIsAH85cDOJHtiCBI3gAC4Kij_ZQx1g9cXMWo88hHKrFQCs2ggnDDMehX3tfJAaAqUSEALw_wcB

Not for the first time you completely fail to understand the points being made @IwantToRetire. You do you. Please stop jumping in on people's posts when you either haven't read them properly or don't understand them.

Potato, potato,
Tomato, tomato...