Interim guidance from EHRC is out

[impossibletoday]

https://x.com/HeadWarriorTWM/status/1915853104421167211?t=qbUrcHVdtPyqVB1uZ5depA&s=19

Is that interesting. I believe that an organisation has put as a threat onto cards to be shown if someone is stopped.

I can imagine that these cards will be used to threaten staff across the UK.

I would suggest that White may not be a reliable source of legal advice considering White spent years on MN giving us their (and stonewall’s ofcourse) legal interpretation which contradicted the Supreme Court judgement.

A union rep guiding people to break the law. I’d give them the boot.

They gave you unrealistic expectations instead of survival strategies for dealing with the social world and with your own body. They've left you to face this mess while they walk away, professional reputations intact.

This!
Tangentially related - we have a regular revolving door of professionals who come into DS’ life. They give their advice and opinion. It’s sometimes good, bad or indifferent. We’ve had people give the most awful advice which has caused our family huge problems and stress. Problems which took years to unpick and nearly caused school placement failure with lifelong consequences. The professionals move on oblivious and never looking back to review what happened or apparently caring if their advice was any good. We later found out one advisor had been sacked for incompetence in a previous post but had just moved areas and carried on. I’ve had to learn the hard way that it’s my job as a parent to gatekeep quite firmly what gets through. As a result I get the creeps when I hear about “affirming care” - which will feel really good and “the right thing” for both families and staff. But it’s not neutral and a certain level of clear sighted, dispassionate and impartial assessment is what is needed and in everyone’s best interest.

It’s a scandal that Stonewall and others have misrepresented the law and misled trans people. That was cruel and they’re the ones who need to step up and sort this out for their community. It’s not women’s problem to solve

If one of your other friends or acquaintances had said something what would your reaction have been?

The judgment went through this in saying that you cannot decide who uses what spaces based on how they look (some TW look very male and some don't) or whether or not they have a piece of paper at home, or what surgery or medication they may or may not have had. It's not possible or practical. So everyone knows it's sex at birth and should act accordingly, and that ends all that problem.

So the question is what if some men illegally and intentionally invade a women's single sex space. The answer being, to report it to the owners/managers of that space, in the same way you'd report and deal with any other illegal or antisocial behaviours. With the same pathway of a polite word from said management, asking to leave, and I suppose if driven to it, reporting to the police.

I absolutely see your point that when people are allowed to legally falsify documents things get harder and that will eventually have to be addressed. The 'you can't ask to see a GRC' has bitten the GI lobby in the bum a bit in the long term.

Yes, this is the elephant in the room.

Big burly blokes saying 'well, no women ever challenged me in the ladies!' demonstrate perfectly male supremacy and the utter cluelessness of so many men about what it's actually like to live in the world.

No, mate. We never challenged you. We've more sense than that.

A woman who sees a man in a woman's space will generally flee, possibly freeze, possibly fawn. Very, very few will 'fight'. All of these are very logical, instictive responses.

Do you have a link/ remember where this was from? I’d like to watch it. Honestly the whole thing is a car crash. The more air time TIM get the more people are aware of how bonkers it is.

'Can't imagine why all these women who say they're intimidated by me don't just come out and say so when they're in a confined space that I've asserted my right to be in by virtue of my desire to be there!'

Let’s see just how committed they are when they had to spend money

Yeh exactly. As if women will challenge a man in a space like that.

I think it wouldn’t matter if you had surgery/ GRC ect - guidance says biological sex regardless of any of that.

Oooh I look forward to that being reported to the EHRC! Complete with the threat of punishment for women who er, want the law to be followed instead of submitting to the desires of men.

Good grief the mask is off now.

Couldn't be any clearer.

Sorry I haven't been able to read the full thread.
I thought the Supreme Court ruling was clear, but the transwomen didn't

As for the person upthread who had a transwoman friend who passed as a woman and no one knew she wasn't one, then that transwoman would still get away with using the women's loos because no one would know.

Not that anyone cared about the provision of women's loos. Ever been in a queue for the loos when DH has nipped in and out of the Gents? I would think that applies to 100% of women.

I’m just saying that the guidance isn’t clear. The description doesn’t say that or say that there’s a sink in the toilet which I think is needed to make it a proper unisex toilet

When people talk about transwomen who pass as women, I think of those that have had early hormone blockers/cross sex hormones, like Jazz Jennings, Hunter Schafer and others. I can imagine them passing from a photo.

When I've seen videos of them walking (and talking/interacting) I've been surprised by the degree by which, to me, they DON'T pass.

I do think some men are more easily misled by external trappings, but most women are very good at noticing male vs female.

PPs friend may "pass" to some people, but there will be a significant number of women to whom they don't. And these women matter too.

I can see that my old employer has given itself problems. It is a newish building with male and female loos with enclosed cubicles and washbasins - so far so good . But the disabled loos are included with the toilet blocks, and are either male or female, so what some are calling a pragmatic solution of using the disabled loos, is going to be difficult. Not wholly though because they also had some unisex loos.

As I understand it the GRC was intended more to allow the holder to marry or die under their preferred gender. Intimate issues of admin with the state. Not a passport to lady-spaces

Reckon that book of RMW’s needs an update by now.

The whole of this x thread by David Green (this is the one Aku Reindorft was responding to that was a screenshot on pg 15 of this thread) is interesting:

https://nitter.net/itsdavegreen/status/1915526626969837717

particularly this part

David Green@itsdavegreen
Apr 24
I can confidently say, that no judge would have any difficulty deciding whether any human being is either a biological man, or a biological woman, where that arose for determination as a fact - the same way they decide who said what, or did what, in any other case. Ultimately though, this criticism isn’t a good faith one, it’s a way critics are trying to undermine the FWS judgment. People don’t have to like the judgment - it’s a free country. But do try to make your criticisms more convincing. (9/9

Antisocial on Radio 4

Hunter Scafer, that's the name I couldn't remember upthread. Beautiful in an androgenous way, bug most definitely male in the way yhey move, unsurprisingly.

I would never post on the TransgenderUK subreddit, as I see it as a transgender space and wouldn't want to intrude.

But it's very sad to see some trans presenting people being made to feel so scared by TRAs who are misleading them to believe that the ruling means they shouldn't exist/can't exist/can't use toilets etc etc. There's people sounding really worried. If TRAs were truly trans advocates, they'd be supporting trans-identified people, telling them it's ok, the ONLY thing they can't do is use opposite sex spaces - they're welcome otherwise in all of public life, and in mixed sex/unisex/single occupancy facilities.

But it seems like TRAs would rather make trans people scared for their own political/rabble-rousing reasons, rather than show any actual true concern for trans people.

I appreciate what you’re saying, but it kind of presupposes that trans people are so irredeemably thick that they can’t just read and understand the guidance for themselves, like we did, rather than having it filtered down by people with nefarious motives.
Is that really the case?

“What are they going to do - sue every company?”

No. Women who are upset can make a complaint to their employer and are legally entitled to do so. The Trans person will be spoken to about their actions. If they don’t comply they’ll be on a disciplinary. If the trans person doesn’t like it they’ll have to sue. Duh!

And good luck with that. Taste and Medicine come to mind here.

TW claims that they know women don’t object to them being in women only provision because they aren’t confronted or challenged overlook social/cultural norms. This simply isn’t an accurate measure.

TW who decide that they pass and base this on self assessment or what friends and family tell them are not using appropriate sources.

TW who say that there is no point in a law that is dependent on self policing need to look around themselves. Most of the laws that impact me on a daily basis depend on individuals voluntarily adhering to them (traffic regulations, environmental laws etc). These laws are supported by enforcement mechanisms like penalties for violations, but rely heavily on personal responsibility and societal norms for compliance.

The gotcha about gender non conforming and butch women being challenged is an unfortunate byproduct of what has gone before, at the hands of trans activists. Being asked if you are female, when due to being perceived as masculine, is easily resolved through speaking. At worst, this is uncomfortable for a female being challenged this way, but nothing worse than that. Signs and campaigns can ask females not to challenge individuals and instead provide an alternative mechanism for raising concerns/objections. TRAs won’t like this as they don’t want any objections to be legitimised.

If they continue to defy the law, it is likely that campaigns to instigate enforcement penalties in the form of fines and convictions. These won’t be hard to police as evidence will need to be produced to evidence natal sex. A swab test will suffice, which is no more intrusive than a breathalyser and is proportionate as determining sex is essential information to the investigation.