Interim guidance from EHRC is out

[impossibletoday]

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

That’s a great analogy!

@PrettyDamnCosmic thank you for that analogy.

I see that, but I think it's one thing to identify strongly with things you actually are, and quite another to insist that you are something you're not, or that you can know what it's like.

So, I'm a woman, I'm happy to be a woman and very much see myself as one, I'm quite feminine in many ways. I have no idea if everyone sees me as especially womanly - they might have different ideas about what feminity entails - but all I'm saying is I feel congruent about my sex (if that sentence makes any grammatical sense). So I get that.

I'm also British, and while I don't have a problem with being British, it's not something I see as a core part of who I am. So, it's part of my identity, but not a part I really lean into.

Let's say I really like France, feel a big affinity for it as a country, spend a lot of time there, have learnt a lot of French, feel very "me" while wafting around the Dordogne in a chic sundress with a fresh baguette in my hand. Can I claim to be French? Is Hillary "Hilaria" Baldwin Spanish? (Not a perfect analogy, as one can acquire citizenship, but even if I did that, it would not be granted on the basis of my alleged emotional affinity and desire to be seen as a Frenchwoman. I mean I would never be seen as a Frenchwoman, I snack too much, that baguette wouldn't make it back to the gîte in one piece 😄)

Let's not even get onto race...e.g. if despite being white I feel an affinity with the idea of being black...

So, I'd break it down as such:

1. Am that thing, feel like that thing - fine
2. Am that thing, don't really feel like that thing - fine, but obviously you are still that thing and sometimes that might matter
3. Am not that thing but kind of wish I was - all very well and good in your imagination, don't expect the law, or other people, to see it that way

I'm afraid that I cannot attribute the original but I saw it posted it somewhere in FWR this morning.
The mental picture it gave me is of the bulldozers destroying the vast illegally constructed extension commissioned by Captain Tom's daughter.😀

I wonder whether the handmaidens will ever figure this out.

The only women people like Butterfly actually seem to like are the ones who fawn over them and agree with them.

If their needs ever came into conflict with a trans woman's, they'd soon realise it's not an equal relationship. There is the main character (the trans woman) and the supporting character (the woman).

Are you saying you hung out in the toilets? Or that your friends lived in the toilets? Who banned you from toilets? You do know you are perfectly free to use male facilities. Or unisex?

The whole argument about trans people being outed as trans by using unisex toilets is spurious anyway.

If, as trans activists claim, most women are perfectly happy to share their facilities with transwomen, then by their assertion, most women will be using the unisex toilets anyway.

It is only if their claim turns out to be false, and they find that most women prefer to be in a single-sex toilet when given the choice, that trans people would be the only people using unisex toilets.

And if that turns out to be the case, it becomes abundantly clear that most women were never happy to share their toilets in the first place, and were merely too intimidated to object when involuntarily placed in that vulnerable situation.

Just had the news on radio with a round up of politics response on this. Labour Pat McFadden says they will comply with the supreme court ruling

Ed Davey from Liberal democrats wants a review.

Carla Denyer from the greens says this is transphobic and wants the ruling repealed

Sounds about right.

Is it just me that hears **Denyer as denier in my head?

I am aware that it's male or female, sex, but for the longest time growing up sex and gender were used synonymously, so I still resort to gender without thinking about it sometimes.

No, we didn't. 🙄The Supreme Court analysed the interaction of the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 in the context of a case between the Scottish Government and For Women Scotland. Their unanimous judgment was that the words sex, man and woman in the context of this legislation denote biological sex and therefore the term single-sex refers unambiguously to members of one or other of the two biological sexes. The fact that it has been misinterpreted and reinterpreted to imply single-gender is unfortunate, but it isn't our fault or responsibility. Women are entitled to welcome the long-overdue restoration of female single-sex spaces, services and sports.

In what way does women protecting their single sex spaces affect trans peoples' access to healthcare?

You know what biological sex you are, you know what organs you have, so you know what screening to go to and when to seek help. I can see no circumstances in which a trans person would not seek help for something unless they convince themselves so completely that they are not their birth sex. For example, a transman knows if they are having problems with their periods and eg need an ultrasound scan of their uterus.

Unfortunately, this analogy doesn't work. If you build an extension without planning permission but the council waits 10 years before telling you to knock it down you can tell them to bog off as it is a permitted development because of the time it has been there without the council complaining.

Me! Me! Me! Me! The world is all about you, isn’t it?

You haven't been banned from toilets - just women's toilets because you are a man.
But this post made me laugh because women really are to blame for everything aren't we- now which rule of misogyny was that?

No we didn't ban you. You weren't supposed to be there in the first place.

You’re telling people that they have a simplistic view on something so nebulous you can’t even describe it yourself, (and resorted to unnecessary snark -“consult a dictionary” 😁).
You won’t change hearts and minds with that nonsense, I’m afraid.

I'm not sure if it is. If a transgender man enters the men's toilets, and that person is muscular and bearded, how can it be known that they aren't a biological man?

If a transgender man enters the men's toilets, and someone in the toilets knows that that person is a transgender man, can the transgender man be asked to leave?

Is a transgender man permitted to use the women's toilets? If yes, how does a transgender man demonstrate to the women in the toilet that they are a biological woman?

The wording in the EHRC is plainly written, but I'm just not sure what this all looks like in a real world setting.

'Hobby'

It's not just you - I do too.

That’s why I said that even though they didn’t have PP they are claiming squatters rights which apply after 11 years.

TBH It’s just an analogy. It doesn’t need to be perfect. I could have just said that just because you have been speeding for years without receiving a ticket doesn’t mean you are now permitted to exceed the speed limit.

You’re losing it, mate.
Who could possibly have a modicum of sympathy for you when you post that sort of shite?

It states that trans men shouldn't use the men's facilities, but that also trans men can sometimes be denied entry to women's facilities. And the opposite. So they should use their sex-aligned facilities but also may not be able to, but also may not be able to use opposite-sex facilities either.

Now, in practice, if a trans man were denied use of the women's facilities, they probably pass well enough to use the men's, although by the guidance they still shouldn't be in there.

The whole idea was that sex mattered, not what you look like, that no matter what you did to yourself it didn't matter - but if "male-enough" looking trans man or a "female-enough" looking trans woman can he denied from their respective sex-aligned toilets, that doesn't seem to track, as clearly what you look like does matter in the guidance.

How that works in practice I'm not sure. There is a call for more unisex spaces, although does that mean every single place that offers toilets or changing facilities will need to update their infrastructure? How plausible is that and how long would it take to provide those spaces?

I think in a real world setting trans men ( who trans activists couldn't have cared less about until now) pass so we'll as men, they will he able to use the men's easily. The intention of not allowing men into women's spaces has unfortunately meant that some women are not welcome in the ladies, because it would mean any man who wants to could pretend to be a trans woman.

Well that makes voting in the by election a little bit easier.

Exactly. The main thing that has damaged trans people's access to health care would have been being allowed to change their medical records, so they were not on the list for any sex based screening processes available. Not to mention the self mutilation and huge amounts of hormones they take