Interim guidance from EHRC is out

[impossibletoday]

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

Any woman who prioritises men's feelings above women's privacy, dignity and safety isn't any kind of feminist.

You really have nothing left do you?

Are you referring to yourself as a 'compassionate feminist'?

People can profess themselves to be feminist (because it is a self applied label) while still being an extreme transgender activist who campaigns to prioritise gender where sex should be the priority. That is the thing about self applied labels isn't it? If it is not based on a material and object fact, it is all just a philosophical belief about identity.

Do you know what isn't self applied anymore, the word woman under the EA2010.

The fact you’ve been on these boards for so long and still think that arguing for women's rights is inherently transphobic and that this is all about being mean to trans people demonstrates how little you’ve actually been listening to women.

I'm done engaging with the attention-seeking alternative reality, and people absolutely convinced that women are all about them all the time. Or the drive by wittering.

To go back to the interesting point

I can't honestly see any desire in the judgment to restrict or prevent any group meeting that wishes to meet and is happy to do so. The judgment is about protections for groups to exist and have legal right to exist.

The groups which have suffered under gender identity and muddied belief that 'women' and 'lesbians' are a mixed sex group are women's groups and activities, and lesbian groups and activities. If they have tried to stay women only they have been bullied, invaded, had funding withdrawn, been refused spaces and called all kinds of terrible names, been driven underground and to meet in secret - on one notable occasion a couple of idiots tried to force police to gain them entry into a woman's home where a group had gone to try and escape them.

The judgment is about preventing that kind of abuse of men (and their enablers, I include women, police and local council personel in that) towards women by making it very clear that those women have every right to say no to men, to define a group by their sex characteristic only, to refute all the bullshit about men being a kind of woman and having to prove 'proportionality' for the crime of refusing to be bullied by men into meeting their needs and being a resource for them, and to be certain that if it went to court, the women would have clear cut protections.

If a group of well, lets say these mythical welders, want to set up an all male group and call themselves the lesbian knitting nanas, I cannot see anyone, judges included, being remotely interested. If they went to court however to demand protections against invasion from a group of Klingons insisting they were a type of lesbian knitting nana and being unfairly and illegally excluded, I doubt they would have a case to refuse as they would not be able to take the legal protections of the word lesbian.

This is about protecting groups - women - from unfair treatment. By men. Even when said men are ones with fantastic entitlement and a distorted view of the situation and of reality. Which currently for women is rampant and everywhere all the time and is really staggeringly tedious.

What is extreme has been the concerted attempt to impose a radical re-conceptualisation, and even denial, of sex onto everyone. The attempt to eradicate all references to 'Sex' to be replaced by 'Gender'; the attempt to remove the word 'woman' from even medical literature. The flagrant attempt to try to remove 'Sex' as aprotected category altogether from the equalities act, and the insistence that women do not exist as a human category with dignity and integrity of its own.

The idea that male people could be female people and that being a woman was something that could be defined by a male person using his own criteria. That women should be reduced to terms like 'cis'; that people must ignore the evidence of their eyes, be forced to use nonsensical pronouns and then teach this to children before putting them on puberty blockers to block their natural development.....

Crazy times indeed

Sorry, you are quite right. So the association is only allowed to restrict to people who share one protected characteristic, or more than one but if more than one then both have to be shared.

I agree that if you want a women only lesbian and bisexual group this may be a problem unless it is agreed (which isn't clear to me either way) that all bi sexuals are included within same sex atttracted.

And if they are, then that means you can't have a women only lesbian group that excludes bi women.

You can have a lesbian and gay group. This would of course include men and women with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment who were same sex attracted (eg transwomen attracted to men).

I did, and then you banned me from toilets for fuck's sake.

Except in a world where words can have any meaning you care to ascribe to them.

Quite. It would be in the titling of the group.

IF the group wished to be able to use the legal protections to define and limit their membership against harassment from men who wished to be identified as women within it.

You haven't been banned from going to the toilet. Honestly, get a grip and get some perspective.

From women’s toilets

where you don’t belong

because you’re male

LGBT people don't share a sexual orientation, they aren't all the same sex, and they don't share a gender reassignment status. It would be like setting up a group for autistic people plus South Asian people plus Buddhists.
Some of the South Asian people would be both Buddhist and autistic and I suppose it would make sense for a Buddhist temple in a largely South Asian part of the UK to set up a group for their autistic members but that would be analogous to your "LGBT" group being only for women who identify as men and are attracted to women. AKA lesbians.

Why can trans not access health care etc?

Have you a single thought for the females, actual females, scared to seek help incase they are gaslit with a male in a dress?

Men regardless of how they present themselves are more than able to get access to health care.

I think it's pretty clear that @ButterflyHatched has not given one single second's consideration to anyone else.

I've never seen such a self absorbed poster on here.

I did, and then you banned me from toilets for fuck's sake.

You are NOT banned from toilets for fuck's sake. It has been clarified that in Law you have no right of access to women's single sex toilets and you never did. You have the right, as you always did, of using the men's single sex toilets or indeed a unisex/mixed sex/gender neutral toilet (of which there are many provided in various places) should you wish to.

Butterfly, you are back where you started, no worse.

There have always been single sex loos.

When you transitioned a decade prior to the Equality Act (and presumably before the GRA), you chose to use the ladies', presumably gambling that you would fit in best there and not trouble anyone. If you got away with it, then your gamble paid off.

The Equality Act, while generally aiming for uniformity, recognised that there are plenty of occasions where we do need to discriminate. This is true of all protected characteristics. Single sex loos are one such scenario. So, the Equality Act said "this new law doesn't apply to single sex loos". (I'm massively paraphrasing).

Stonewall et al then spread the idea that "woman" was a category anyone could opt into.

The Supreme Court have now clarified that it's not and never was.

So, what's really changed for you? If you go into the ladies' loos, you're doing so on the same grounds as before - i.e. you're hoping nobody will notice or mind.

I've referred throughout to "you" and your decisions, but the other dimension is how service providers interpret the law. Some were following bad guidance, which has been found to be unlawful. So any service providers stating "hey, anyone can use the ladies'" are the ones that have been breaking the law, as we now know. You aren't personally subject to the Equality Act, but obviously you can be asked to leave if you were making other patrons uncomfortable or intimidated. If you never had any trouble before Stonewall law started doing the rounds, then maybe you won't have any trouble now either.

You clearly don't like it, but that's the situation. You never had a perfect right to use women's facilities.

Also, nobody will bat an eyelid if you use the unisex facilities. Nobody is going to be watching you and thinking "OMG, I thought that was a woman, but now that I see her going into the unisex cubicle, I realise it's a trans person!". They either could tell already, or they won't think anything of it. Plenty of people use unisex cubicles for one reason or another. Disabled, baby changing, embarrassing health condition, prefer it for some reason, etc. If the unisex cubicle is the closest and most convenient to me, I'm not going to avoid it in case someone thinks I'm trans. (I might avoid it because men have probably made a mess of it, though).

It’s quite something.

I agree with @darkgreendarkbark. No one is going to care who uses unisex facility. No one.

This hyper focus from pp isn’t helpful.

@ButterflyHatched The apt analogy that I saw someone post on another thread was that Stonewall etc had encouraged you to build an extension to your house but now the council has ordered that it be demolished as you didn't have planning permission. Unsurprisingly you are upset & annoyed but you are now trying to claim the equivalent of squatters rights because you have been illegitimately using female spaces for decades. It was wrong for you to start using female spaces & now the highest court in the land has clarified that you should never have been using those female spaces.

It is still on there it's just encoded into the driver number. They use your passport or whatever piece of evidence you initially send in to mark down your gender. It's usually the first piece of identification you can change to your new name and gender preference without much hassle - deed pool/statutory declaration and a cover letter with a D1 form.

Hang on - the law says women’s toilets are for biological women only - that’s why you’re banned from women’s toilets.

No-one here banned you from toilets - it’s the law that protects women that does that, not the women being protected by that law.

You aren't banned from toilets. You have the right to use the toilets for your biological sex, the same right as everyone else.

What I mean is your licence has your gender encoded, they don't ask about it as they use other evidence you provide to determine what to code on there.

Compassion only flows in one direction in your world. From the women to the men who demand it.

Sorry, but no.

It's sex (male or female) not gender.