A worrying thought about the SC judgment

[PlayerOneReady]

Is anyone else concerned that what may happen now, in reality, is a big increase in ‘gender neutral’ facilities as organisations realise they don’t actually have capacity for a third space, at least in the short term?

And we all know from what we’ve seen in theatres, etc, that that will end up with effectively one ‘Men’s/with urinals’ and one ‘Gender Neutral’.

It was this story in today’s Times that made me think about it. I’m especially worried about gym changing rooms etc. Would we have the right to challenge if this does happen?

story:

Equalities watchdog inundated with questions on trans women ruling

https://www.thetimes.com/article/557269e6-2902-4b30-b873-4fac87ba6253?shareToken=131768232050262c20823acf6fe87c92

New toilets have to be openable from the outside for safety reasons so no enclosed public toilet is truly ‘lockable’ and secure.

Those women can share with all men or none.

No woman is harmed by all males being excluded. We are all harmed by the creation of a legal pathway to the redesignation of "female-only space" as "female and some males space" because, as we have seen, the transactivists will lobby service providers to discontinue female-only space.

I agree that women are adversely affected and also disabled people.

It’s also interesting to note that disabled people regularly have no option available to them.

@theilltemperedqueenofspacetime This is what transactivists lobbying for female-only space to be dropped looks like: going after a Women's Aid branch. https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5289563-support-for-edinburgh-womens-aid

We aren't talking walking groups and book clubs here.

Yes, let's not forget, that women only anything have been relentlessly targeted by transactivists to include men.

Up to and including breastfeeding organisations and still birth support groups.

Ah,I see. My inner libertarian was wondering why a group of true believers shouldn't be able to get together and do their thing (provided that needs for single-sex provision were also fully met, so everyone has a choice).

But I understand now that tactically it's a much better starting point to say 'no trans-inclusion at all'.

It's not "no trans inclusion at all". A transman, being female, would still be included by default in a female-only space and the bar for excluding her would rightly be very high.

That was not what I meant, and I apologise if I was unclear.

To restate at greater length: our objective, both on principle and for tactical reasons, should be that women's things that include both women and transwomen, but exclude other men, must continue to be illegal. Correct?

This does seem to be more than we originally asked for (at a minimum, women's things that exclude transwomen to be both legal, and available when we want or need them). Insisting on it is bound to be presented as illiberal.

So, when trans allies says that they want to be able to invite their trans sisters to their women's club, how do we answer?

One. It's illegal (not constructive: laws can be changed)

Two. The only defensible reasons to exclude men also apply to transwomen, so your club is illogical (patronising: they may simply disagree with you)

Three. If you invite them they will want to come to all the clubs (defeatist: we can say no)

Four. If you invite them they will want to force themselves into essential single-sex things that aren't clubs (ditto)

Five. Your club will normalise a bad idea which is particularly harmful to vulnerable people (non-ecumenical: bad ideas should be debated, not suppressed)

To summarise: this is a matter of faith. We do not want you to practise your faith, even amongst yourselves, because it is demanding bad things and spreading bad ideas.

I think this conversation is going to continue to be quite painful all round.

@theilltemperedqueenofspacetime

Gentlemen's clubs only admit men even as guests.

Women only groups will only admit women.

If you want to meet in a mixed sex group, go to a mixed sex venue.

The entitlement of trans advocates wanting the benefits of all worlds is off the scale.

So, when trans allies says that they want to be able to invite their trans sisters to their women's club, how do we answer?

Couldnt that be a trans and allies club rather than a women's club?

Why do they need to pretend its a women's club?

This! They just need to be clear that their woman’s club is fir women and men

A variant of two: the only legally-defensible reasons for excluding men apply to TW because TW are factually and legally men. If your club is women-only, that by definition excludes TW. If you want a mixed club that is female-focused, have a constitution that enshrines that female focus in the section detailing the aims of the club and enforce a code of conduct that sets out behavioural expectations clearly.

If Labour instruct guidance to make women’s toilets gender neutral so we still don’t have single sex spaces then we go full on again and keep pushing and voting them out until we do.

From Akua Reindorf: I may already have posted this yesterday, I can't keep up with the sheer number of disingenuous 'but what about the men' threads.

And for the avoidance of doubt, it is just wrong that orgs aren't obliged to exclude transwomen from women’s single-sex facilities. Once a facility is single-sex, it must be open only to biological women/men. Otherwise it no longer meets the conditions for a single-sex facility

What are all these established women-only clubs that so many posters here are concerned about inviting their trans friends to? If you want to join a private members club then quit your women only one and join a mixed-sex one. Or continue your membership of your women-only club and meet your trans friends for dinner in a restaurant or in a pub or bar or in your home or at the park or cinema or wherever. Just not your women-only or men-only club.

I'm hoping that there is no one here who has ever invited their transwomen friends to a lesbian-only event or a women-only event.