The SC ruling is good news for people with the protected characteristic of Gender Reassignment

[RhymesWithOrange]

Starting a new thread as it seems I broke a rule with my previous attempt.

The Supreme Court ruling should be welcomed by people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The law is now clear, women can be confident that their rights, spaces etc. are protected, and their rights are no longer in conflict with people with a gender recognition certificate. People with a GRC know that the EA2010 protects them from discrimination and harassment.

This should remove the heat and toxicity from the debate and enable everyone to live their lives in safety and peace, expressing themselves in any way they choose.

Win win.

It's excellent news for transmen - they get to keep all of the pregnancy and maternity rights that would have been lost had the decision gone the other way, plus the existing protection of Gender Reassignment and of course, Sex. But none of the hand wringers or doom-sayers mention this bit. I watched some of the Ch4 News earlier, and Krishnan G-M was talking to a legal expert about it. He talked about the impact to "trans", but it was obvious he only meant transwomen, i.e. men, and the impact to them. Grrrrrrr.

I think it will be case of one step backwards, two steps forward for solid trans rights. Building trans rights on the premise that they will be included under the protected characteristic of sex, as the opposite of their birth sex and chromosomal and gonadal sex was always a precarious foundation for establishing rights. It led to (unacknowledged) clashes, where to allow people to be counted as their preferred gender, they would have actually lost rights. The Scottish Government's lawyer clearly stated that trans men had no right to protections related to pregnancy if they are treated as men in law. Far better to recognise and accept trans people for who they are, and the potential complexities of their needs in law, rather than tack their rights on to an existing characteristic that is at times a poor fit for their actual needs. Yes, it may be uncomfortable to be having discussions about what rights you need and why, but that is how the other protected characteristic groups have achieved a reasonably solid set of protections in law as well as acceptance in society.

Exactly this. Why should it be the responsibility of women to pander to men’s fantasies / delusions?

Trans-identifying men (also erroneously known as “trans women”) should be in male spaces. It’s up to other men how they deal with the situation.

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Great opportunity for men to step up to the plate now and show solidarity and inclusivity with their sex class, welcoming all men into their spaces. It is incumbent on men to show up for each other and call out internalised misandry, homophobia and prejudice when directed at transidentified men. Men can be TERFs in the sheets all they like, but now is the time to be true allies in the streets and say "Yes!" to all men, however they present.

This is incorrect.

The SC judgement clarifies the existing law. The EA2010 established that it is legal to provide unisex (aka trans-inclusive) services. The EA2010 gives express permission to discriminate between the sexes by providing single-sex services where it is a reasonable and proportion means of achieving a legitimate aim. One sex must not be disadvantaged by the opposite sex being provided with a single-sex service.

The SC confirmed what GC women have been saying all along. It was Stonewall that misrepresented the EA2010, and established this presumption that women do not have the right to object to trans-IDing men in their spaces.

I don't understand how we disagree with each other. Are we not saying the same thing?

The only law that needs amending in this context is the GRA.

This is the bit I'm disagreeing with:

Before the ruling: the law permits (with conditions) some women-only things, some mixed-sex things, and some trans-inclusive things (but we got Stonewalled out of our women-only things).

Mixed-sex is the same as trans-inclusive. The law does not differentiate between them.

After the ruling: the third alternative is no longer permitted, because the derogation from the law against sex-discrimination is only available (in this context) to single-sex things: law needs amending?

Your third alternative is still permitted, because mixed-sex is still permitted. Nothing has changed in law.

As I understand it (IANAL) the GRA is the law that states that men must be treated as if they were women when they request it. Sometimes. When it does not inconvenience other men too much.

Nothing has changed about the EA2010.

Let's hope that men can be kind and accepting to trans women in the same way that stonewall demanded women to be kind and accepting to trans women

Transwomen as a statistical group retains a male pattern of offending. They should never, ever have been in women's prisons.

By trans-inclusive, I was referring to, for example, a lesbian club that admits transwomen but not other men, which would now be illegal sex discrimination (because SSEs require that the space actually be single-sex) (of course, they could say its a club for people with a shared belief, but the ruling was a bit scathing about that sort of thing).

Since that post, the conversation across the board moved on a lot, and various PP's cogent arguments convinced me that re-legalising such spaces would be a bad idea. I probably don't need to explain why!

Who does the "wanting" in your closing "if they want to"?

The ruling from the SC makes it clear, iiuc, that if any organisation is providing a single-sex opportunity or service to women under the legitimate and proportional exception to the general sex-discrimination rules, then if they make an exception for some males (those who present as sufficiently feminine) then it would be discriminatory to then not include ALL men (however they present or identify) - it has become mixed sex.

Opportunities and services are sometimes single-sex for the benefit of more vulnerable female people who might not be able to access such opportunities/services at all if they are mixed sex. Some women are less vulnerable and are able to access similar opportunities/services in a mixed sex context. Neither those women nor anyone in the heirarchy providing the single-sex opportunities/services have the right to speak on behalf of the vulnerable women who need them to be single-sex. They do not have the right to "want to" have a fudgy mixture of biological sex and gender presentation in their rulebook. They can create a separate fully mixed-sex equivalent to which women, men, transwomen and transmen are all welcome. They can't have a "women only plus some men" rule.

I agree with you. The 'thing' doing the 'wanting' in my post was, for example, a hypothetical lesbian group that wants to invite in transwomen (whilst single-sex lesbian groups also exist, providing choice)

I changed my mind since then, in light of others' arguments over the last week.

In other words, this is a belief system so harmful to society, that its adherents should not be allowed to practise it, even exclusively amongst themselves.

Gender nonconformity is the right category,I think. Otherwise a man who wears a dress but calls himself a man does not have a right not to be discriminated against on that basis, but a man who wears a dress but calls himself a woman does. I don't think that's fair.

Define gender non-conformity in law. It's impossible, it's regressive, it's different for different people, cultures, religions. It shifts over time. The protected characteristic of gender reassignment is the only thing that exists in law. "Trans" and "transgender" are not mentioned in EA2010.

It would seem a bit odd to make this a protected characteristic but not to protect people who have tattoos or piercings, or even red hair, from discrimination.

It is good news if they are at a critically vulnerable physical or mental health state and they collapse in the toilet cubicle. Heart attacks and strokes happen every 5 mins each in this country and going to the loo puts pressure on the body. If they are in a single sex toilet it’s more likely to have a door gap so they are more likely to be noticed and get rescued in time.

It happens more than you think as that’s where people go to when they feel ill.

Thats true for everyone of course. Single sex toilets help everyone at their most vulnerable because of design.

Why aren’t lefty bro men celebrating the SC clarification as a wonderful opportunity to loosen the straight jacket of masculinity that has always prevented them from broadening their definitions of ‘manliness’? Aren’t they excited about the opportunity to show off how inclusive they are by welcoming the fragile ‘dolls’ into their mix and protecting them in their spaces? Shouldn’t they be relishing the chance to rally male philanthropists the world over to create male focused rape crisis and homelessness services? If not, why not?

Otherwise a man who wears a dress but calls himself a man does not have a right not to be discriminated against on that basis

Are you suggesting that it is discriminatory to expect an autogynephiliac man to keep his paraphilia in his bedroom?

This gender identity nonsense has already enabled and encouraged enough men to parade their paraphilias in public. Kink and fetish belong between consenting adults in a private space. They should not be part of the 'whole self' that gets brought to work. They should not be protected 'identities'.

If gender nonconformity was to become a protected characteristic, maybe quite a lot of us can claim it. I’m a woman and a mother. I was also a tomboy as a kid, and I still wear trousers every day, never wear makeup and work as a scientist. Do I count as gender non conforming?