Trans women ban in single sex spaces

[Cismyfatarse]

This was in the Times today. Do we dare to hope?

Trans people who self-identify as women face single-sex space ban

https://www.thetimes.com/article/68423de4-3325-4af8-b2f0-7c7f12900899?shareToken=f012cc8892c9e09b8980831f5adc89e6

They’re proud of a law to prioritise male sex fetishists’ wishes above women’s and children’s needs, based on a blatant lie and requiring the population to pretend to believe that lie.

How admirable.

Waiting with baited breath to see what Wednesday brings and then see what this government decides to do to actually protect women.

Unfortunately I don't have must trust in the Labour Party on this issue, but we'll see soon enough now.

My Labour MP has a pretty much stock c&p response to any question or comment:

1 - the most important thing about women's rights and equalities is respect for men (seriously. Every answer says this.)

2 - Labour policy is right and brilliant always, yay Labour

3 - If it's a problem it's because a bigger boy did it and ran away, and it's nothing to do with us.

Much as I'd love to see the GRA repealed, Labour MPs will never vote for anything that could be framed as "taking away rights". Even smart ministers like Wes Streeting or Shabana Mahmood, who might be good on other aspects, would be very reluctant to say "this is a terrible piece of legislation and it needs to be repealed".

And, Kemi notwithstanding, most current Conservative MPs are either wets who sincerely agree with Labour, or they're terrified of TRAs calling them bigots. Polls showing the public would support a tougher stand aren't doing much to stiffen backbones.

So it's a question of either waiting for a Reform government, or hoping that it gets gutted in court to the point where a GRC is about as meaningful as a certificate saying you belong to the Green Lantern Corps.

I agree that this is a case of the legislature fucking around and finding out, but getting rid of a bad piece of legislation is easier said than done.

Sadly, that’s an accurate summary of our politics @SionnachRuadh.

But - can you honestly imagine the reaction in the dog & duck once the legislative impact of a GRC meaning a male is a female for all purposes in law, starts to hit home?

I mean first they’d laugh, then they’d try to see how they could take advantage, but then they’d work out true implications. That it isn’t just a minority of people that they’ve never paid attention that it applies to.

I’m sure they’ll start off following the script, but it will become harder and harder to keep it up.

This is the absolute crux of the issue. What thought process prevailed; what dereliction of vigilance? What pure, blatant misogyny allowed anyone to falsify an important, basic document, where you can change the reality of your birth?

How did we either allow this to happen, were #BeKind blindsided or disregarded to this egregious extent?

Totally right!

This is the third or fourth thread based on misinformation by MSM.

At no time legally has any one who self identifies as a woman allowed in SSS.

And in face under the law no man with a GRC is allowed in a service provided under the SSE.

Please fact check before repeating media misinformation.!

First of all please remember that many newspapers dont bother to fact check and will inadvertently, or for the sake of a good headline blur the issue.

re SSE ie single sex spaces / services - obviously it is in reference to the EA. This means that no male person, even if they have a GRC can use these services.

As we all know particularly in Scotland but not exclusively, some funders, politicians and ever providers have said they are. But had to stop saying that once Lady Haldane specifically said that under the SSE no man with a GRC is allowed to use the service. In fact after the ruling even Nicola Sturgeon admitted this was the legal position and Labour of course said that's why we wrote them.

This thread is about a newspaper article that has attempted (because none of us have actually seen the statement) what the EHRC is now saying having been asked by this Government to provide more explicit guidelines of implementing the EA, not just in relation to the SSE but to the occassions when a man with a GRC is allowed to be admitted, included in a supposedly women's event, service or whatever. (There was a thread about this because of published guidelines on when you could or could not invoke the SSE)

Their suggestion that GRC should be shown is to make it clear that self identity is not legally recognised in the UK.

But they have also said which is propably more important than the ruling for the Supreme Court whatever it says, is that the GRA ie GRC should NOT be applied to the EA because it is in fact discrimination against the protected characteristic of sex.

No othe protected characteristic is impinged on in this way.
It is a shame really that the actual statement isn't published and that it coincides with the forth coming ruling.

It is a really, really important moment because it is the EHRC - the organisation the Government says is the final word on implementing equality in the UK - is telling the UK Government the law as written is discriminatory.

This has far more significant than clarifying the word sex.

Because if (which I think is unlikely) the EA was changed so that there was no part of it saying someone with a GRC was actually to be treated as the opposite sex to the one they were born, the issue of when TW were effectively "legal women" would never happen. (Unless in a section the direct opposite of the SSE there was a short list of when a man with a TW was a "legal woman" maybe for a marriage certificate or something.)

Worth remembering the FWS court case is about the Representation on Boards bill in Scotland. ie that boards shouldn't be able to claim they had equal representation of women on a board if in fact some of them are TW.

I assume the notion being that if the court rules that in terms of equal representation of men and women a TW doesn't count as a woman, it could (should) mean this rule should be applied to any number of occassions when TW are counted as women.

But as TW are already excluded from SSS, the court case isn't about that.

That's why the EHRC statement about what the new guidelines should say is so significant.

(alrady posted on another thread)

The Times is pretty reputable. And the article is easy to fact check. If men without a GRA / with one are not allowed in SSS, what about all the places that they seem to be? Are you suggesting they are not there or not allowed there? Because they seem to be all over the place. Prisons. Rape Crisis Centres. Refuges. Gym changing rooms. NHS changing rooms.

I’m not sure I fully understand @IwantToRetire are you saying that there are no males using SSS, or that there should be no males using SSS because the EA allows for their exclusion?

I agree that the EA does allow for their exclusion, however it’s evident based on service provider policies, numerous reports and the court cases that males ARE using Female SSS. The Scottish govt have confirmed that males are in female prisons and will continue to be placed in female prisons on a ‘case by case basis’, that males are allowed to use female domestic abuse and rape crisis centres, and have actually recently voted to defund services that don’t allow males into those services if they claim to be TW.

The main problem with the SSS (apart from the fact that there needs to be a law about it) is the highly sucessful misinformation spread by Stonewall etc..

And of course intimidation.

And the fact that will will go on the street to protect their pension rights (WASPIs) and abortion (numberous demos) but there is no public representation of women being angry about this.

Hard as it is to accept but 99.9% of the world do not read FWR, or the odd article that appears in the right wing press.

So overwhelmingly the TRAs have won the public battle.

Even those who dont think it is right, still think this is the law.

And if you dont believe me just look up the provisions of the SSE in the EA where Rape Crisis Centres are used as an obvious example of why men with a GRC should be excluded.

Which the Times could have done by doing a basic fact check.

It is another example of how so many institutions have been Stonewalled.

Thanks goodness the EHRC are going to the heart of the problem. That the protected characteristic of sex is the only characteristic that is undermined by another bill.

But of course the problem is that anything that is an women's issues never gets treated seriously. Even is a so called quality paper.

PS once you have fact checked what I have said by looking up the EA you could let the Times know they have got it wrong.

Because they seem to be all over the place. Prisons. Rape Crisis Centres. Refuges. Gym changing rooms. NHS changing rooms.

Do you really think that the men who are usually the ones taking management decisions are going to be bothered about going through the process of applying, invoking the SSE?

Most refuges have lost their funding, not because of whether or not TW are allowed to use the service but because in terms of the men in the finance department who do the costings think it is too expensive to have women only.

The power of the TRAs is built on the centuries old and institutionalised MRAs view of the world.

I’m sure that at least in Scotland, the captured people in charge- Rape Crisis Scotland and the Scottish govt made funding for Rape Crisis Centres conditional on including men in the women’s provision cos ‘inclusion’ and at least some refused and lost their funding which went to an organisation run by the husband of one Mridhul Wadwha, woman hating CEO of Edinburgh Rape Crisis. I’m sure the issue was inclusion of these men at all costs, not cost of providing a parallel service.

Please fact check before repeating media misinformation.!

I’m about to reject your guidance and offer another reframing as I did for the headline of the piece as written.

Please tone check for the intent before upbraiding others for misinformation.

From those who haven't seen this clearly expressed in the news papers what has happened is that the EHRC has submitted to the Government an update of the Statutory Code of Practice on Services, Public Functions and Associations which was written if 2011.

Unless and until it is published no one, whether a newspaper or individuals will know what it actually says.

For all any of us know those who have leaked info to the papers have their own agenda, so the spin may not even reflect.

Have no idea what tone check means.

But as the SSE are openly described in the public domain, and as you dont seem to think I am a reliable source, surely you would want to find out for yourself.

Kemi Badenoch summed up the EA as a shield (against discrimination), not a sword. Therefore an organisation letting men into women’s spaces might well be subjected to a claim of unlawful discrimination but afaik there is no criminal act in itself.

Also I don’t think the effect of the GRC question has yet been settled in law - isn’t that the ruling we are waiting for on Wed?

It can sound quite complex - what misinformation are you challenging specifically?

I cannot for the life of me figure out why anyone would need a GRC
Wear what you want, call yourself what you want but there is no need for a GRC unless you have nefarious plans

@IwantToRetireI am totally lost. What are you suggesting? That it is NOT legal for a man who says he is a woman to go into SSS but they do it anyway? Or that it is legal, but shouldn’t be.

I have been in these trenches for quite a long time now (Man Friday…..) and thought I understood but you seem to be arguing something new and I am unclear what it is.

I honestly wouldn’t worry about it @Cismyfatarse- GRCs are a grey area in law, hence the Supreme Court ruling on Weds.

It's legal to exclude transwomen, irrespective of GRC status, from certain women-only things, provided it doesn't have an egregiously discriminatory effect (eg, they end up with no thing at all).

Institutions don't do it, because Stonewall persuaded them that trans-inclusion would fulfill a proportionate and legitimate aim of non gender reassignment discrimination.

We say, this leads to sex-discrimination, but there's no case law yet.

Avoiding sex-discrimination would be a proportionate and legitimate aim justifying trans-exclusion.

(Takes chicken across river, goes back for corn...)

I did see what looked like an error in the article, will go back and take a look...

Thanks @Ereshkigalangcleg Am feeling pretty anxious. Am in Scotland and it has all been so catastrophically awful here that we need a win.

What do you mean “applying”? “Applying” for what?

Organisations don’t need to apply for anything to make a toilet single sex, but you may be called to defend excluding a male who identifies as a woman who (wrongly) feels he has the right to use them.

We think it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to keep these men out of women only spaces, but courts don’t always agree, in the very limited examples which exist. If those lower court decisions had gone to appeal, maybe they would have been overturned. But they didn’t.