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

Why should birth sex be considered personal, private information? An adult's sex is publicly visible information in almost all interactions. And when sex is relevant it is one of the most important issues in that interaction.

Well quite. Except that the trans lobby has such power (or the lawmakers were so feeble minded) that they could cause such blindingly obvious facts to be deemed ‘private information’.

So you can have an obvious man stood in front of you and no one is allowed to say he’s a man or exclude him from a female space or require him to adhere to normal safeguarding practices like not wandering around in the girls changing rooms at a swimming competition.

It doesn't exclude men who hold a GRC. Until that is addressed we have not got our spaces back. No men, not even if they have a GRC.
I am not at all hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in FWS's favour re biological sex.

Good call on primogeniture. If the GRA can’t be repealed and the TIM vandals want access to all of women’s services those clauses should be struck out of the GRA. All purposes means all purposes, right? If I recall, there’s a religious carve out as well. That should go too.

It's amusing how the TRAs crow about ALL PURPOSES when the primogeniture rules blatantly show that's not true. As always they ignore inconvenient things such as the truth and reality

Yes, "all purposes" actually means "all purposes except where this would disadvantage biological males".

One of the funny things about the GRA is that it says you become the target sex "for all purposes" on receiving a GRC, then it goes on to list exceptions. Including sports!

I don't remember a religious carveout in the GRA as such - I think the applicable legislation is Schedule 23 of the Equality Act, but (being a 2010 law) it's mostly about protecting churches that don't want to perform same sex marriages.

But I think in terms of religious bodies, and we're talking here about churches that believe only men can be ordained, that it cuts both ways - in that position, you wouldn't want to lay yourself open to litigation from a transman who rocks up wanting to be ordained, but you would also want, in the event of a male priest taking a trip to Malaga Airport, to have the ability to shuffle him out of his position. I can't remember any court cases testing this.

Generally I think the EqA puts far too many pettifogging restrictions on freedom of association, and some sensible rewriting would improve it, but good luck convincing Labour MPs of this.

Same would apply, of course, if you had a religious group that was women only in either membership or leadership. I can't think of any UK based examples, but of course in the US it was the Dianic Wiccans who were an early target of the TRAs.

The Bona Dea wouldn't have had any truck with men claiming to be women

GRA is 🐂💩. A male is still far more likely to be violent, abusive and perverted, a bit of paper, just like a bad taste frock , lippy, size 12 stilettos and fishnets changes nothing. Male pattern behaviour never changes.

I reject the idea that TW are "banned" that implies that they have done something wrong and are being punnished, rather than the truth which is that they were never permitted in the first place.

I also disagree about changing birth certificates. They are a record of a birth, not a descripition of a persons identity.

I think there is some flexibility in Drivers Licences/Passports having a qualifying marker for TG, either TGW or TGM. I think this would be very helpful in a lot of cases especially if medical treatment is required after an accident.

The Equality Act sets out lawful exceptions and previous guidance specifically mentioned things like changing rooms. Didn't the Supreme Court ruling meand that GRC doesn't over-ride sex-based rights?

Yes.

I don't know why they used the phrase 'for all purposes' when its clear that nothing has changed in the moment the GRC is issued. If a medical study needs women, the now female GRC holder won't be of any use.

I think the assumption was that these men are reasonable and wouldn't insert themselves into inappropriate situations and that they want to pass, therefore would avoid being outed.

But David Lammy was involved, so who knows?

The idea that a man is sufficiently not male enough that he must be female, and we all have to play along, is a bonkers thing for parliament to spend time on. No wonder none of it makes sense.